User talk:GroundRisk/sandbox

Please note that there is a debate about whether to delete this page.Sophiahounslow (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hope these help
I don't know enough about this to write an article (once read a book which left me stupefied) but hope these help:- , , Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Islam's Sharia Finance Cultural Implications of the Global Adoption of a Religion Based Economic System Overview
 * 2) DIME Elements of Jihad
 * 3) [also pages 183, 193, 225, 226]
 * 1) Islam's Sharia Finance Cultural Implications of the Global Adoption of a Religion Based Economic System Overview
 * 2) DIME Elements of Jihad
 * 3) [also pages 183, 193, 225, 226]
 * 1) DIME Elements of Jihad
 * 2) [also pages 183, 193, 225, 226]


 * Thanks. GroundRisk (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How about these:
 * Islam - Muslim Brotherhood History
 * The Muslim Brotherhood in America: Orthodox and Active
 * I believe you would do well to consult Amatulic about the deletion. He knows about Islamic topics and has a knack of recognizing when it is a bias and when it is not. If your luck hits its peak he can prove to be your panacea. Go to WP:ANI if you're confident enough, or even Jimbo Wales' talk page, that will give you the exposure and trust me you don't want to work in the dark here. The issues of cold-feet regarding Islamic articles in Wikipedia are not rare, this won't happen in case of any other topic. P.S. Never waste your time trying to argue that your version of the article was perfect, it probably wasn't perfect at all, but that's usually not the issue when it is nominated for the deletion under WP:G10 or WP:G11. The real issue is if the "topic" merits a page in the Namespace. See Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, WP:OFFENSE ← wikipedia articles don't need to pander to sentimental demands. That's all. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I will do that. Thank you. I am going to work on it in my sandbox this weekend. GroundRisk (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * about taqiyya, Jihad and commandments. They seem reliable. Hope they help.  Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * about taqiyya, Jihad and commandments. They seem reliable. Hope they help.  Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * about taqiyya, Jihad and commandments. They seem reliable. Hope they help.  Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Advice
I think you should go to WP:DRV. Deletion Review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily for disputed deletions and speedy deletions, and for disputed decisions made in deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion. In your case I certainly don't think it should have been speedied. Hence, if you want, you can explore that option, 👍 Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked into this and seems to be something I should probably do. My question is, at what point do I decide to put the article back up? And don't worry I am leaving in my sandbox for the time being but just curious as to how long it should stay in there? GroundRisk (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would strongly urge you not to put the article back up unilaterally as you did last time. That may or rather will serve as grounds for your block. Go to DRV with the deleted article "Civilization Jihad" and put forth your rationales there as well as the improvements you added to this draft here and I will probably try to help you at the DRV also. Thereafter pray for a consensus in your favour (which is not uncommon with controversial articles). If you manage to get your reasons across the majority of community people, then don't worry your article will be restored. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I added the article to AFD but I have to wait the MFD to run its course first, which I didn't realize. GroundRisk (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

How to fix issues with neutrality of contentious assertions
@GroundRisk:

Take this edit for example:

You included : "CAIR also sued an American activist $1.3 million for maintaining Anti-CAIR-net.org website which list the organizations links to the Muslim Brotherhood." But it has a contentious and controversial connotation, that is, ″CAIR is partaking in Lawfare Jihad: The War Against Free Speech″, well while it may be true in this case, it would have have come off as more acceptable or admissible to any random reader if it had not sounded as though an editor is conjuring up the connection between CAIR and anti-First Amendment LAWFARE basing upon that lawsuit. What I mean is, if it alluded to the source explicitly (i.e. Brooke M. Goldstein, Aaron Eitan Meyer in the book ), it would absolve you from the accusation of bias because you are a messenger then. We are allowed to report the controversial assertions, prevailing prejudicial mentalities of one community but without taking sides. Your detractors call you "biased" do something to nullify that charge or else no matter what you do to this draft it will never have its own article. This, of course, is not intended to mean in any way whatsoever that what you did was wrong. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)