User talk:Jemiljan/Archive 1

Racism
Hey Jemijan. I don't think it was me who said that racism didn't appear in dictionaries -- if it was I have completely forgotten the information. However, the best way to find out when a word entered the language is to consult the Oxford English Dictionary (OED); a good library should have one. NoahB (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

SEKEM
Thanks for contributing to the SEKEM article; it's good to have sources from closer to its location. The talk page discussion is not really relevant any more; the comments are from someone who didn't look carefully at the citations in the article.

The arbitration referred to decided that anthroposophical publications, being in-house, should not be used to support controversial or judgment-laden content about anthroposophical organizations. This is not relevant here; it's meant to avoid someone quoting a SEKEM publication to assert that "SEKEM is the best public-service organization in Egypt", for example. It's better if an independent authority asserts this!! Hgilbert (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Help with foreign language Wiki articles
I am interested in learning more about the policy regarding the listing of foreign language wiki articles that are linked to an English article in the left hand column. The reason that I ask is that I am aware of multiple terms for something in various languages, but a robot or editor keeps coming back and reducing them to one term per language. While I have to composed the articles in the other languages, just what is excised seems arbitrary.

the article in question is this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_marbling

I know that there are several terms in Persian used for Paper marbling. They are "Kaghaz-e Abri, Abri, and today the arti scalled "Abro Bad. I have tried to add these multiples, but for some reason this seems to not be allowed. Similarly, in Arabic, the terms "Waraqh Marmariyya" Fan al Abru" and Waraqah al Mujaza' have all been used to refer to paper marbling in that language.

Also, in Japanese, there is a distinct term that is used for marbling onto fabric: "Suminagashi-zome" or "floating ink dying". When discussing paper, the term is "Floating ink".

In tandem with this, I have noticed that a title under which an article in a foreign language doesn't really match the English. The Turkish version of the above article translates to mean "The Traditional Turkish Art of Ebru". I find this title to be very POV, as the art is not solely a Turkish tradition.

Can anyone help explain to me the policies regarding the linking of multiple terms in foreign languages? Can I go ahead and shorten the Turkish article to just "Ebru" or "the art of Ebru"?

Finally, I must confess to having trouble with the use of the term "paper" when discussing marbling, as people have been marbling fabric for some time now as well. I know that this was used to distinguish the term referring to the art of marbling from say, beef marbling. I wonder if it would be appropriate to change the article title to "The Art of Marbling" ?

Thanks!


 * You could file a request for comment on those pages to ask the attention of other users who are skilled in the subjects and/or speak the languages to help you. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How do I file a request for comment? I do know enough of these languages to be able to compose basic articles for those that do not exist.  That said, it does help me with resolving what has essentially been an ethnocentric edit war on the Turkish language version of the article, nor does it help me to create articles that are based on the variant terms that I mentioned.Jemiljan (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)




 * I have noticed that there have been additional pages added to Wikipedia in Ukranian and Russian with a Turkish name heading for marbled paper.

http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%95%D0%B1%D1%80%D1%83

Ukrainian and Russian do not generally employ the Turkish name for this art. It is obviously the result of a person promoting an overtly ethnocentric view of the art, who advocates a "Turkish origin" and "Turkish name" for it, something we have had a problem with in the past on the English language page as well. The person who started the Ukrainian page translated a portion of the English language page, omitting the section on East Asia. The problem of ethnocentric bias is mentioned on the paper marbling page.Jemiljan (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Help with the use of the term 'Alawi vs. Alawite
I moved an article that I felt was incorrectly named, due to the prevailing usage by Scholars and in academic journals. A vociferous reply has resulted, arguing that Wikipedia has a policy of using "common" usages. the problem is that while those who favor the term "Alawite" beleive it is more common, that is not exactly the case at all. While I made the mistake of unilaterally moving the article, I have argued in the Talk:‘Alawi page that the term is far from common. A parallel can be found in numerous other Arabic terms in Wiki that were once spelled with the suffix ending "ite", which are no longer used, such as the current prevailing usage of "Shia" over the older "Shiite", and numerous other similar examples. Support for my position can be found in numerous authoritative sources on this topic. I have discovered that the discrepancy may be the result of American and British English spelling differences, as the AP Stylebook employs the term 'Alawi, but the Encyclopedia Britannica uses 'Alawite.

Could there be a way to resolve this issue, so that not only this article, but others, are standardized? I believe that my position reflects the proposed Manual of Style (Arabic) to be used for Arabic terms in Wikipedia. Is there a way to determine which format should be preferred?Jemiljan (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC) The same issue mentioned above has resurfaced again on the same Talk:‘Alawi page. This matter really requires the attention of a senior editor who is familiar with foreign language transliteration issues.
 * Just let the requested move comments work out. You can try asking at WT:NC if you want to. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the head's up. PinkWorld (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Pink*
 * Please see WP:CONSENSUS. If others agree, do it. If others don't agree, don't. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 09:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

alawi again
You have previously participated in a discussion at Talk:‘Alawi. If you care, please weigh in on a modification of the move request there. Jasy jatere (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:RS
Hi. Please review the two above linked policies before adding links to websites critical of living persons to their respective websites. Best, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Jemiljan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Gnowor TC 07:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

FYI
Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Do NOT alter other people's lines in discussions!
I mean the change you made in Talk:Robert Spencer (author). I suppose you don't want to see accusations of vandalism against you. --Uikku (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Vandalism? Uikku, did I remove anything? It's pretty obvious that I was only trying to restructure what was posted for clarity, and as a way to add my own comment in response. Either you or User:Davidelah had incorrectly used indent codes. In particular, the passage quoting The Complete Infidels' Guide to the Koran was unclear - did you or David enter it?  If you did, then you edited it incorrectly, for it was unsigned at the end.  I assumed that David entered it, for his signature was the one immediately following.  I am more than willing to correct this, but if you want to create a passage break, then use the proper codes of the letter "p" in angle brackets. If I edited it incorrectly, then please feel free to correct it, but at least use the correct codes and style formatting as per WP:WPMOS.Jemiljan (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You removed a wikilink from my line. Is that a fact or not? Anyway I put it back. --Uikku (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but I did so inadvertently, so thanks for restoring it. It's weird, because I certainly have no objection whatsoever to it, and I even specifically checked the link, so I must not have saved it correctly.  That said, I do maintain my point that you are incorrectly using the term when you refer to it as "cherry picking", and that you are posing a tu quoque.Jemiljan (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually my intention was that someone like you would point that the method (naskh) is not really cherry picking but vice versa. It is really a method to reject cherry picking. It makes reading Quran easier for a muslim and a non-muslim, but one must know its existence and importance. So I thank you for pointing that. I also wanted to point that Spencer had enough discipline to use that same naskh because correct reading of Quran is based on that. That means his method was not cherry picking. --Uikku (talk) 06:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you have provided me with no specific examples of Spencer supposedly doing as you say, I am unable to scrutinize your claim that he isn't cherry picking any further. I have noted that his discussions of verse 9:5 overlook the subsequent verse entirely.  In addition, I have also highlighted an example on his talk page of one example of egregious cherry-picking and misquotation of a source on female circumcision.  While not from the Qur'an per se, it does demonstrate that his methods are unsound and therefore unreliableJemiljan (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Spencer
Please stop adding the guilt by association on Robert Spencer's article. The discussions on this are clearly against your view. Truthsort (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop accusing me of adding something that I didn't "add" myself. I reverted one change, once only.  A passing glance at the history will demonstrate this. Secondly, I think you're selectively reading the discussions that I referred you to. Perhaps you would like to address the points made rather than smugly assert a de facto statement as proof?Jemiljan (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, among several others, have stated that this is guilt by association and should not be included. I will simply tell you that what you're doing here violates WP:CANVASS and that it is quite suspicious that two new users are now adding on to this. Truthsort (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Jayjg and several others have stated this, but I have also responded that they have also not addressed my point in thid specific case, and neither have you. I was incorrect when I said that it was Jayjg, but Off2riorob  who left the mention on Spencer's page in place. Secondly, yes, I did ask a few former editors of the page in question to provide their input, but they have all participated in editing that specific page over the years, and have participated in previous consensus building. In no way asked them to influence a certain outcome; I simply asked them for their input. Jonathan Wallace in particular expended a considerable amount of energy reformatting the page in question a few months ago after a series of incidents comprised of edit wars and vandalism, and the present format was achieved through a carefully achieved consensus. You can observe this for yourself, by looking at the most recent talk archives of the page.  All of this is well within the WP policy that "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." For these reasons, your insinuations of canvassing are totally unwarranted. Finally, I have had absolutely NO contact with the editors you find "suspicious".  In fact, I find their unilateral edits very problematic, for they well exceed what I have clearly advocated, which is far more limited and brief.  The sole user who has responded is the only other person to participate in the discussion on the [|relevant WP BLP noticeboard discussion], and they have so far simply limited themselves to the talk page.  I note that you have not participated in any of these discussions, except on the page itself, and you have been quite unilateral in your own assessments and reverts. Specificially, you intially claimed that there was a consensus, without citing any pertinent discussions to that effect, and you did so clearly before one had been established on the WP:BLP noticeboard; you have been engaged in edit warring based on your own presumption of a consensus that didn't exist (which Jayjg saw fit to warn me about, but for some peculiar reason, neglected to give you the same treatment, even though you've engaged in far more edits than I have, and clearly deserve equitable treatment); and now you have accused me of canvassing, for daring to ask editors with a proven track record of constructive, consensus-building to provide their input. Suffice it to say that you are creating quite an impression, Truthsort.Jemiljan (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Robert Spencer (author). Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jayjg (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Jayjg Your warning is noted, but I do believe thatit is equally appropriate to issue the same the person whose deletions I reverted, twice in a 48 hour period, namely Truthsort(talk).  Additionally, I would appreciate it if you would directly address my point on the Breivik discussion regarding the responses of individuals quoted by Breivik, for you have not done so.Jemiljan (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)