User talk:Irn/Archive 1

Archive 1 | Archive &rarr; Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Ton e  23:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

re: INCITE!
Nice, thanks. Dkreisst (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Falafel
If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text " " below this text, or contact me.


 * I find this block to be rather unwarranted. User:Irn made efforts to discuss the sourced text he/she was restoring here: Talk:Falafel Notice that the only two comments in this section are from Irn, while User:M1rth who was reverting the additions made by Irn, didn't bother to respond, discussing instead only by way of edit summary reverting the additions. I think that pointing out WP:3RR and other related policies to Irn would have been a good first step to take here, particularly since this is a new user who made a good faith effort to add relevant and sourced material to the article. Indeed, this user managed to find the original New York Times article for the source that was cited, putting a rest to questions raised regarding its reliability. In short, I think this block is unfair. There is little danger of continuing disruption here and the block seems punitive, rather than preventative. Please reconsider. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 12:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be true, Tiamut, that Irn is doing the "right thing", and M1rht is in the wrong. However, that does not excuse edit warring under any circumstances. I don't really know what else to say—Irn's warring was, unfortunately, disruptive, and thus I blocked his/her (I'm not sure of Irn's gender) account to prevent further disruption. I reiterate my blocking message: edit warring, even if you're "right", is wrong. Anthøny  13:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies - it turns out the software beat me to it. Your block expired before I could remove it. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 03:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was rather surprised that I was not notified that discussion was ongoing on this matter... Let alone that a straight unblock was made. Hersfold, Irn is very much aware of the 3RR rule... Additionally, the block was for edit warring—not a technical violation of the 3-revert rule. The behaviour on Irn's part was disruptive... I made a block. Rather by-the-book, and very much deserved. Anthøny  18:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Your rollback request
Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Requests for rollback/Denied/March 2008. RFRBot (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Denial of rollback
Well, rollback is for reverting vandalism/blatant spam only, and not for reverting good-faith edits or for use in content disputes/revert wars. The best thing to do would either be to wait for a month or two, and re-apply then; or, I could grant it to you now, (after a review of your anti-vandalism work), but only if I have your guarantee that you'll use rollback for reverting vandalism, and that you understand it's for that use. Remember that rollback can be removed as easily as it can be given. Acalamari 01:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The same goes here. Your block above was quite inappropriate in my view, and it's a shame your request got denied as a result. Feel free to contact me if Acalamari's not around. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * After a review of some of your anti-vandalism work, and after your guarantee and understanding of rollback's use, I believe you'll use rollback correctly. For information on rollback, you may wish to see Rollback feature and New admin school/Rollback. In the meantime, be careful, and good luck. Acalamari 15:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope that
you do not feel discouraged by what I think was a rather unfortunate application of the blocking policy. Technically, more than one revert is considered edit-warring, but you made efforts to discuss that were not reciprocated and you received no heads up as to 3RR or other relevant policies here. I'm glad that others saw fit not to deny you rollback privileges and that no major harm has been done. You should know that many editors have been blocked for 3RR without technically violating it - (at least two of the four times I was blocked were for 3 reverts or less - thankfully, I've since learned just to take a step back when faced with people who revert without discussion). Edit-warring is heavily frowned upon here and I know that you were not trying to do that (as evidenced by your attempts at discussing the issue twice, with no response from the other editor). Anyway, I hope there are no hard feelings. And happy editing (and vandal-fighting!)  T i a m u t talk 10:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was, honestly, feeling quite discouraged when I first saw the block. However, I definitely learned a lesson that'll make me a better editor in the long run. And I appreciate the encouraging messages as I'm still, obviously, learning the ropes here. --Irn (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In reply to semi-related comment on my talk page:
 * You're quite welcome. That's why we have the unblock template - admins are still human, and do make mistakes from time to time. I'm glad to see you got your rollback button as well. Quick tip, though - when your talk page gets too long to handle, make sure to archive it rather than just deleting the old discussions. If your block record ever comes into question for whatever reason, it'll be important that you can provide that discussion as evidence in your defense. Anyway, it's good to see you weren't put off by that incident. Please let me know if you ever need help with anything, and happy editing as always. :-) Hers fold  (t/a/c) 03:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Star
'' Disclaimer: This is not intended to display any sort of opinion towards the block itself - even if you weren't "unblocked," you would still be deserving of this barnstar if you had the same resolve following its release - probably even more so. ''
 * As a follow-up note, Irn, I'd like to endorse and second this barnstar. Since my block, you've come on a treat: the incidents visible pre-block are clearly long gone, and, to use Hersfold's comment, above, you've "come out smiling". You're clearly a great editor, and it's unfortunate that our first encounter was through the block system. Hopefully future meetings will be under circumstances less drastic. All the best, and kind regards. Yours, Anthøny  23:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This Bridge
Hi Irn- thanks- that's wonderful. I was hoping someone would write that. I will contribute to the article for sure. Best, Kootenayvolcano (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Habacuc's Natividad.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Habacuc's Natividad.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced category
Please do not add categories that do not have a sourced statement in the article that verifies the accuracy of the category, as you did to Tim Wise. Note that the issue isn't "what kind of source" I need; it's a matter of Wikipedia policy. Read the blue links in this message. Note also that sources are cited in the article, not in an edit summary. Read WP:CITE. Ward3001 (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What policy are you referring to that mandates that categories be verified by sourced statements? The policy you linked to (WP:V) does not discuss categories. Furthermore, only direct quotations and statements likely to be challenged require sources, according to WP:V (are you challenging the fact that he's Jewish?). Maybe you would do well to read When to cite.


 * Honestly, your objections strike me as petty and hypocritical. None of the categories for the Tim Wise article are sourced because the article has literally no sources. Why are you objecting to the insertion of this one category? Additionally, why did you remove the category and respond snarkily on my talk page when you could have easily included the word "Jewish" in the article with the source?--Irn (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Read WP:CAT: "If the category does not already exist, is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it? ... If the answer ... is no, then the category is probably inappropriate". The few exceptions are the ones that are quite obvious; for example, Category:Living People is appropriate if there is no date of death in the article and status of living is implied by description of current activities; in that case you don't need a specific statement that the person is alive. But issues of ethnicity and religion always require a statement in the article verifying it. This has been discussed extensively in various talk pages.
 * "are you challenging the fact that he's Jewish?": I'm not challenging anything, just requesting verification, per Wikipedia policy.
 * "Honestly, your objections strike me as petty and hypocritical": Please read Wikipedia guidelines regarding assuming good faith. Because anyone can edit Wikipedia, there is no editorial oversight other than other editors trying to be sure that policies are followed. Otherwise anyone could write anything and it could not be challenged. There is nothing petty or hypocritical in what I am doing. If you don't feel that category needs a sourced statement to back it up, let me suggest that you raise the issue on the article's talk page and wait for consensus from the Wikipedia community. And please remember a core principle of Wikipedia: "Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited".
 * "respond snarkily": Perhaps it wasn't intended, but that accusation is very close to a personal attack. Please read WP:NPA.
 * "you could have easily included the word "Jewish" in the article with the source": I don't have a source. Finding and citing the source is the responsibility of the editor adding the category.
 * Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * First, you didn't address my most pertinent question: What policy are you referring to that mandates that categories be verified by sourced statements?


 * The quotation you provided confuses me. I looked it up in the original context, and I still don’t know if I understand it. The category already exists; doesn’t that render this a moot point? Further, what would it mean to write a few more paragraphs on the subject? That every page tagged as Category:American Jews needs multiple paragraphs on Jews in the US? Also, from where are you getting the information in the rest of that bullet? I see no policy that states that issues of ethnicity and religion always require a statement in the article verifying it. Telling me that something has been discussed extensively on talk pages does not make it policy.


 * As for assuming good faith. I had assumed good faith when making the edit. I saw that you objected to the category because it was unsourced, so I provided you with a source that took me four seconds to find. However, when you again reverted it with only "unsourced" in the summary and then posted a comment on my talk page consisting of five imperative sentences, citing general policies and guidelines with questionable applicability, I began to question that. And that is why I openly questioned your objections. Your response to which, by the way, did not address my subsequent statements, which explained why I thought what you were doing was out of line. I still maintain that holding the addition of this one category to the standards of reliable sources and verifiability is petty and hypocritical. I don’t think I need to reiterate why it’s hypocritical in this instance.


 * To be clear, I do think that requiring a verifiable source in this instance is petty. Wikipedia policy only states that quotations and statements likely to be challenged require sources. BLP policy further specifies that contentious material in biographies of living people requires verifiable sources as well. You have repeatedly asserted that what you are doing is Wikipedia policy. Am I missing something?


 * Finding and citing the source is the responsibility of the editor adding the category. You’re right, and I can’t argue with you. However, this goes back to the good faith bit. You actually wrote I don’t have a source. I don’t know what you mean by "have" but I did provide you with a source, so that’s a rather disingenuous statement. Additionally, while it is, technically, the responsibility of the person adding the information, if your concern were truly that you don’t want unverified information in the article, I don’t see why you couldn’t have taken the same amount of time that it took you to write on my talk page and integrate the source yourself. Or, tag it as Category unsourced instead of simply reverting it.


 * Finally, thank you for your explanation of your actions. I appreciate where you are coming from in your concerns for keeping unverified tripe and misinformation out of Wikipedia. I mean that sincerely. I just don’t think you are going about it in a constructive manner. -- Irn (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Majora Carter
Hi Irn, just wanted to say the messages you left for Givechase and Drawn Some were excellent and I completely agree with you. I hope the editors can work together or sort it out using dispute resolution, because the situation wasn't helping either of them or the article. Somno (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! (: -- Irn (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do NOT loosely accuse people of violating Wikipedia policy. Drawn Some (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies. -- Irn (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Amanda Maracotte
The link to Iowa Hawk's parody of Amanda Maracotte was appropriate and should have been left. http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2007/02/my_fair_blogger.html "22:48, 15 February 2009 Irn (Talk | contribs) m (13,639 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Myfairblogger; WP:EL, WP:BLP. using TW) (undo)" No I am not Iowa Hawk, but I thought the satire parody was witty enough to be a social commentary worth posting. It is relevant to this topic. Obviously it is not neutral but it is not intended to be neutral--it is satire of Amanda Marcotte. Nor am I suggesting it be in the body of the article, which would obviously be NPOV. It is an external link, directly related to Amanda Maracotte. It should be included. Is Wikipedia at the point that no parody can be referenced in a bio article as an external link? How pathetic. Myfairblogger (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See my response on the article talk page. -- Irn (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox removal
I noted that you removed the FBI infobox on the Angela Davis article citing "(Undid revision 337004771 by Shinerunner (talk) WP:UNDUE with possible WP:BLP issues)". Since the infobox information is a summary of the sourced article information and matter of public record I would kindly disagree with your assessment. I will not restore the box however I must let you know that I do not agree with your actions and statement regarding this matter. Shine runner  (talk)   11:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note! I wouldn’t dispute that the infobox summarizes information that can be found in the article and is a matter of public record. However, by putting it at the top of the article in bold print, surrounding her picture, I think the infobox puts undue weight on her status as a former FBI 10 Most Wanted person. While the trial that ensued has been a source of her notability, I would argue that she is not best known for being in the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted, but rather for being an activist and an academic (indeed, the entire incident, of which her being placed on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted list was only a part, only merits one line in the lead). By highlighting her former status as a suspected criminal above everything else in her career, I think we even run into BLP issues when you consider that (a) she was acquitted of those charges and (b) it privileges one negative episode in her life above a career’s worth of work. -- Irn (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Discographies
My fault, I thought it was vandalism. You can revert it. Blackjays1 (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. -- Irn (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Nicholas John Bowen
Hi Irn. I hope you  don't  mind but  I  have changed your  CSD  from  A7 (not  notable person) to  G3 (hoax/vandalism). It's either a hoax or an attack (G10), and it will attract  a speedier deletion. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I don't do much CSD work, so I'm not real familiar with the best way to mark an article, and I appreciate the heads up. -- Irn (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am James. My apologies with Blaze, but what I am saying is factual. Blaze are a maker of video game accessories and have done so for 20 years. i was not trying to spam. I do however know the company as I have always bought my accessories from them. I am however also trying to add to other areas where I have deep or insider knowledge. What should I have written? Should I have not put on the url? If so I have seen lots of URL references on your site. I am a new member, dont want to be banned, and want to get it right. Regards James. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James Gill (talk • contribs) 22:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. While what you wrote may be 100% accurate, Wikipedia works on the principle of verifiability, so what you need to do is include reliable sources that support whatever claim you're making. Also keep in mind that anything you post needs to adhere to a neutral point of view (your edit read like an advertisement). So I guess to answer your question, I would recommend starting by familiarizing yourself with those three policies I linked to. I hope that helps. -- Irn (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Roederer Estate
or whatever... I think you just notified the creator of the article that he should notify the creator of the article that he's nominated it for deletion. (I'm getting confusssed here...) Cesar's the creator - Sae something is the nominator. I've renominated it, anyway. And notified him. Peridon (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did do that. I fixed it though. (: I was using twinkle and trying to notify him that it was nominated but accidentally chose the wrong template. Thanks! -- Irn 19:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: Good faith
(For clarity's sake and to give context to the below post, I've copy-pasted my original comment from here.) I accused you of condescending because you presumptuously addressed "youngsters" while asking rhetorical questions that assume you have greater knowledge of the subject area and then ask me if I've read something that I just quoted. Maybe "condescending" isn't the right word, but it's hard to find a good faith explanation for that behavior. Indeed, you ask me to assume good faith when your answer to my question about which part is to ask me if I've read it (a question that assumes either laziness or stupidity on my part) and then quote the exact same passage that I quoted. What kind of good faith reason could you have for asking if I've read something I just quoted to you? Perhaps if you had pointed to a different part, I could understand asking if I had read all of it. But pointing to the same passage and asking if I've read it? Maybe everything you're doing is in good faith. Maybe you actually meant it when you said, "Let's just make the entire article one sentence: "Tim Wise is white."" But what good faith reason do you have for demanding a citation for something that is widely known, widely acknowledged, and denied by none? From a brief look at your editing history, you seem like a solid editor with a solid history, and I don't understand what happened in this discussion. You state that you are trying to arrive at consensus, but I have a hard time seeing how said comments help lead to consensus. -- Irn (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope this settles the Tim Wise being white issue. I suspect we both have other matters that are pressing. Have a good day. Cresix (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "I accused you of condescending because you presumptuously addressed "youngsters"": Forgive me for assuming you would not know the difference between light-hearted use of "youngsters", assuming that all of us are adults (that's a term I use jokingly for anyone under 60) and bad faith. If I interact with you again, I assure you I will assume that you take everything literally and I will avoid humor like the plague.
 * "But what good faith reason do you have for demanding a citation for something that is widely known, widely acknowledged, and denied by none?": I've already explained that if you demand an explanation beyond WP:V, then my explanation is that I challenge that Tim Wise is white. Are you saying I don't have the right to challenge an unsourced edit? If so, let me know and we can take this to WT:V to see if others wish to rewrite that policy.
 * "Maybe you actually meant it when you said, "Let's just make the entire article one sentence: "Tim Wise is white."": In case you didn't get my point (and please don't take that as anything personal, just saying if you don't get my point), that comment was in response to Bertrc's statement that Wise being white "is the only thing that makes him notable to me". So again, I apologize for not making it clear that the comment was not directed at you personally, and again I assure you next time I'll make it clear whether any of my comments are directed at you and you alone, and I'll be sure not to use the least bit of hyperbole to make a point, or to assume that you will not take everything I say literally. I don't think I need to do that with Bertrc; he didn't seem to have any problem with it.
 * "You state that you are trying to arrive at consensus, but I have a hard time seeing how said comments help lead to consensus.: As far as I can tell, we arrived at a consensus, and in a reasonable period of time, and with no edit warring. But, again, perhaps if I make it extremely clear when my comments are to be taken literally, when I might be writing with a bit of good-natured humor, and when my comments are in response to someone other than you, it might help you not misinterpret my intentions. And please don't take "help you" to be a personal attack or commentary about whether you need help. I accept the full responsbility for not fully informing you of all of the above on the article's talk page after each one of my edits.
 * When I first read this, I thought to myself, "Wait, Cresix hasn't addressed any of my points or questions." But, actually, you have. And I'm not saying you don't have a right to challenge an unsourced edit; I'm calling you out for doing so in bad faith. -- Irn (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And I'm calling you out for assuming bad faith about my edits that were done in good faith, and for your incredible presumptuousness. That fact that you have no sense of humor does not mean my edits are done in bad faith. And I want to see your proof that I challenged the unsourced information in bad faith. Can you read minds now? Do you know what I was thinking about Wise and his racial background when I challenged the information. I think we can safely say NO, you don't know what I was thinking when I challenged the information. I'm finished with you. Your talk page is no longer on my watchlist. And don't waste your time messaging me because I assume you have nothing more constructive to say to me; any messages will be removed. Case closed. Cresix (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

G4 speedies
Hi. A quick heads-up: db-repost, WP:CSD, is only for use where the previous deletion was by a deletion discussion such as AfD - the point being to save going through the discussion again. If the previous deletion was a speedy, as with Jacques jiha just now, and the article is still speediable, then just speedy-tag it again. That sort of extended CV is usually a copy-vio, and feeding a sentence or two into Google will find the source, but in this case, while I was doing that, another admin deleted it as G11, promotion. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry about that. Thanks for the note! -- Irn (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wall Street has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for May 2011
Wall Street, a page you edited has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for May 2011. We encourage you to participate in improving this article. You can also vote for next months article of the Month here. --Kumioko (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Nawal el Saadawi
Hello, I am really puzzled as to why you reverted my revert of an anonymous editor, who removed standard and fully verifiable catagories, absolutely applicable, unless el Saadawi has changed both her religious affiliation, nationality and work in feminism/activism recently. Feel free to read through the full article and each reference if you seek to challenge her being Egyptian, Feminist and Muslim perferably before you revert the other editor. You should contact the anonymous editor who edited and the edit summary was misleading as her article covers all 3 catagories and would benefit from your guidance. Nimom0 (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I actually have no idea how she personally identifies in terms of religion, but I did re-read the article before reverting to verify, and I saw nothing in there mentioning that she identifies as a Muslim. (Did I miss it? Because I still can't find it.) You seem to be more familiar with her than I am, and I believe you that she has publicly self-identified as Muslim, and I don't want to edit war, so I'll leave it. But you should know that it doesn't matter whether or not it's true if someone challenges it; what matters is whether or not you can prove it with a reliable source, which shouldn't be too hard in this case. If I did somehow miss it, I would appreciate it if you could just point out to me where it says that, and if not, it would be great if you could integrate her religious self-identification into the text with a source. -- Irn (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it's not edit warring if restoring valid catagories. Unless you can of course prove that she is no more an Egyptian, Muslim feminist. The first 2 lines state "Egyptian feminist" and that she has written on women in islam. 2 citations use the word 'feminism' in their headings. Yet 'Egyptian Feminists' was removed despite verified (citations). As for her religious belief, lot of activists don't politisize their faith. As for NeS, in an article I read, she clearly defines herself as a Muslim. However her notability is her work. As for challenging, by removing the catagories, you would have to provide reliable sources for the removals as per WP:RS. Truth is irrelevant. You should probe the more anonymous/single purpose account edits that frequently happen on such BLPs, because they don't like the her work/her, because they feel she opposes the establishment ie. on female circumcision a deeply embedded cultural and religious practice which met vehement protests from much public, when prohibited by law a fews years back. Otherwise we'd probably have to remove the vast majority under the catagory 'Egyptian Muslims' which also counts politicians, lawmakers, other activists (Hoda Shaarawi) and then would be left only those who known for being Muslim such as and scholars. So don't see the harm in that catagory really. Hope this clarifies. Nimom0 (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First, a few minor points on Wikipedia policy/guidelines: even if it's valid, it's still edit warring; additionally, the burden of proof is on the person who wants to include the material. I see that you're new to Wikipedia, so it might be advisable to familiarize yourself with those links (especially the edit warring, because that can get you in trouble).
 * Well I reverted simply because I didn't see the removal as warranted. I still don't believe it is edit warring (even if one revert) and also bear in mind, I am engaging in a talk with you on your talkpage to clarify why I reverted and discuss which is important to editing. I am pretty familiarized with the basic editing links/policies, as I have read much on how to edit beforehand. I am also aware of the burden of proof policy. But thanks for your concern. Going back to the topic at hand. See below: Nimom0 (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, that said, to the article: the categories are "Egyptian Muslims" and "Islamic feminists" - both of which reference her religious beliefs. WP:BLPCAT deals specifically with categories in biographies of living persons and provides an especially high standard for categories that deal with a person's religious beliefs (the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.) While it is clear that she writes a lot about women in Islam, from the Wikipedia article, it is not clear that she herself identifies as a Muslim. That is why I reverted. I would strongly encourage you to find that article you read where she does self-identify as Muslim and include it in the article. -- Irn (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, but this needs to be done to all the remainder articles as well. So if you feel that strongly about this then you really need to review each of the entries under the two catagories in order to remove or keep. I had a brief look at the Hoda Shaarawi (an example) and I did not see any religious self identification and I am confident the same applies to majority of the enteries. So you should also look into the entries under the two catagories for sake of consistency. I also strongly advise you to be on guard for anonymous editors who remove/add a word, sentence, paragraph here and there often in clear BLP violations. This will also help eliminate loss of information or BLP violations. I think the non-identification thing goes back again to the lack of politicizing ones faith. I am sure, I can find that article and add somewhere where it makes sense. So thats that then. Nimom0 (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In conclusion, you will be glad to know I found the article with a quote by NeS identifying herself as a Muslim and added it to the article. So problem solved. Nimom0 (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Omar-Toons (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. All of this is often word for word from gongwer, a state government news provider in which I subscribe. It is pay-per-view but I started to see exact text on the pages I have deleted info from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrittataOhio (talk • contribs) 18:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the extent of the copying, I'm wondering if it's not perhaps the other way around: that Gongwer is using Wikipedia as its source. This is rather common (and an acceptable use of Wikipedia), and if Gongwer has a page for each of these politicians, it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't just copy their information from Wikipedia. Are you sure that Gongwer is the originator of this content? -- Irn (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm positive. I doubt they are using wikipedia for information, as they are a statehouse news bureau. Also, looking at contribs, you notice that all info posted on wikipedia was posted after certain articles were published on gongwer, making it impossible. Furthermore, I clicked on the contribs and they're all copyright violators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrittataOhio (talk • contribs) 18:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Something (Chairlift album) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Something (Chairlift album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Something (Chairlift album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)