User talk:Panyd/Archive 5

Welcome to my talk page!
Remember, be polite, and please enjoy yourselves!

I have spent the last few months in and out of hospital, so I have been rather neglectful of my Wikipedian duties. However, if you still have a message for me after my prolonged gap, please let me know! I will be taking things rather slowly at first, so if I don't get back to you here, try my alternative account. If I still don't get back to you, try another administrator who will be more than happy to help!

Enjoy and remember to keep smiling!

Life Saver
Thank you so much for your help and advice Panyd! I am new to this wiki process so I am learning new things everyday! I hope you have a great weekend and keep supporting the newbies!!! :)(This is my first time commenting on a talk page so I hope this is the correct format.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balisha46 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you again!
Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. Courcelles 16:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! :D Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, seems I'm late on the curve here. Good to have you back. I don't suppose you could use necromancy or something to bring CONTRIB back from the dead? That would be nice.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Super Lawyers
Hi Panyd - Not sure if I'm doing this user talk correctly. I'm trying to figure out why the Super Lawyers magazine stub is deleted - but competitors like Avvo, Martindale Hubbell are allowed to remain. Super Lawyers provides a valuable service and is a publication that has been around since 1993. - Thanks

18:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madeleinegee (talk • contribs)


 * Hey! You almost got it. I moved the comment so it's got its own section. Hope you don't mind.


 * The reason the page was deleted is because it is the same as a page which was deleted via a deletion discussion. Here at Wikipedia, we don't use the argument that something should or shouldn't be included simply because other stuff exists. But if you'd like to recreate the article; why not remake a version in your userspace? That way you can edit to your heart's content and other editors can check it before it is published, which minimises its chance of being deleted.


 * I hope this has helped but if you need anything else just let me know. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

ok - so once I recreate the stub in my userspace, how do other editors find it - is it part of the larger Wikipedia search? Do I invite you to look at it?

Thanks.

Madeleinegee (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You will have to show other editors for them to be able to see the page, but that shouldn't be a problem. I'll be happy to look at it and I'm sure other people will be too. A good place to look for editors would be the magazine wikiproject as they specialise in these types of articles. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 10:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

IP block
Hi Panyd, thanks for blocking, but it's actually that is the active IP right now.-- Beloved  Freak  10:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hold on folks, I'm investigating whether or not a rangeblock is feasible for this particular user. The Cavalry (Message me) 10:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's fine, I'll leave it up to you guys. Just wanted to make sure s/he wasn't slipping through the net! Thanks, -- Beloved Freak  10:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Tag-team ftw! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 10:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly, no rangeblock possible. However, I've blocked the IP for one month, and if it continues, it's easy to spot. The Cavalry (Message me) 10:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have a couple of the target articles on my watchlist now, and I think other editors do too, so I'm sure will spot it if (when) it happens again. -- Beloved Freak  10:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted article issue
--Shirt58 (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted junk page
It seems you deleted MediaWiki talk:Customusertemplate-ACP2-Which skills do you have to offer? (Technology) created by Tangchangcheng. Please delete it again (I noticed the recreation after adding db-nonsense). Johnuniq (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey! It's been deleted but just so you know, it didn't qualify under G1 (in my opinion) because it was a link - not jibberish. Hope tht's ok! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 11:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

30 FTC INDIA
Girl you sound like fun but you declined my CSD re this article on the grounds it has context - peter Pan has more context than this article but oh well - you a admin - I will not speak - except to growl. Mark Dask  18:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for saying that I sound like fun! A happy growl back at you. The article is refering to a successful test flight and you can tell that by what is written there. That's why I declined it under A1. However, if you'd like to take another shot at it via PROD or AfD I'm almost completely certain it would be a speedy close for deletion. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I will prod the article and hey ho see what happens. I think it could make a good article but not as thin as it is. - so delete in my view.  Mark  Dask  19:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with your decline reasoning
on Penguins vs Sharks. Seems to me that it fits the criteria of WP:NOTINHERITED. My question is why is that rule being ignored a lot of late? I have seen many CSD declinations where the same line of thought (associated with a notable building, company, person, so it must be notable) was used to decline the tagging.  ArcAngel    (talk) ) 19:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey there! I completely agree with you that notability is not inhereted, but we're talking about speedy deletion criteria here and unfortunately any assertion of significance, even if it's unsourced and not enough to establish notability, is enough for a speedy deletion. Hope that helps and for more information see WP:CSD, but if you need anything let me know. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Carbon trade exchange
Hi Panyd,

You recently declined an A7 tag I placed on this page because the word "only" conferred importance. However, I disagree with this assessment. At first, I thought the same exact thing but I did a little research and thought about it, and I eventually decided that the word "only" would convey importance only if the act in and of itself was important. For instance, if I were to say I'm the only Wikipedia editor editing in their pajamas right now, that wouldn't make me special :) (probably not true also). While this article seems to be written just well enough to bypass G11, I think you might find on a second reading that the article doesn't actually assert importance but only appears to.  Would you mind giving it another pass?  No big deal if not, I will take it to prod and then AFD.  Thanks!  N o f o rmation  Talk  01:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just checked the page and it looks like the word only has been taken out anyway, so perhaps it can be reassessed the way it is now.  N o f o rmation  Talk  01:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I take a break for a day, and I see it has been deleted! Sorry for my slowness. Last time I looked I would've G11'd it too. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 10:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

NGOs
Hi Panyd,

I was trying to create a list of NGOs that are based in Dharamsala, India, categorized by name, work description and a link to their homepages. This article was deleted by you.

I understand that you shouldn't promote stuff on Wikipedia. At the same time, I'm uncertain about what I can/cannot do as there are similar articles already published eg. "List of non-governmental organizations in Thailand".

Please advise, Thanks Nils — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nils2008 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey there! There were a few problems with that article which made it qualify under G11. I'm not sure that a list of homepages is appropriate at all as that makes the page more of a directory than an encyclopedic entry. Instead of having a table with the NGOs, why not try having a separate heading for each one with a paragraph which covers the basics and then a link to the relevant Wikipedia article? That's a good start but I recommend trying it out first in your userspace first. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 10:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"The Decision"
Hi, so I created a page for "The Decision," which was the one-hour special in which LeBron James announced he was signing with the Miami Heat. It was deleted on two bases: that it duplicates an existing article, and that it's an unambiguous advertisement or promotion.

I respectfully disagree with both of these assessments. There is no existing article on The Decision, which in the sports world was a fairly monumental event and I've talked to a number of people who were very surprised that wikipedia didn't have an article on it. Sports Illustrated just ran a lengthy piece on the events leading up to The Decision ... clearly this was a notable event that warrants its own page.

Nor is it a promotion of any kind. It was something that happened that people still talk about and that still defines the image of one of the world's premier celebrities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seemorr (talk • contribs) 13:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Firstly, let me apologise for taking so long to get back to you. It's been a hectic couple of weeks I can tell you! Secondly, let me explain; if that particular episode of the television show is notable on its own merits, in such a way as to include information which is not already available on Mr James' article (which I don't believe to be the case), then it would not qualify as a candidate for speedy deletion. However, the article in question would have to be about the show, not its impact on the career of Mr James - because otherwise that would make it a fork article which may also be deleted in due course (though not speedily so).
 * I see there being two options going forward. Either you can remake the page on your userspace, in which case you can then show it to people to review before posting it. This should stop it from being speedily deleted again. Or alternatively, you can go to the talk page of the main article and suggest that the information you have be posted on to there. That way people other than myself can ensure that there is no duplication of efforts.
 * Hope this has been helpful but if you need anything else please do not hesitate to say hello! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of Buysellads
Hi Panyd,

This is regarding the page that you deleted yesterday asking me to not publish the same article after it got deleted. With all respect i would like to ask you a few queries. Hope you don't mind :)

I had contested against the speedy deletion as follows

This page should not be speedy deleted because...Previously it was deleted only because of lack of notability. Which i have improved this time by adding references from new york times and yahoo finance. Last time the administrators did not have a problem with the article and was only the case of notability so i have improved on it. Now how fair is it to delete the article saying that it is the same as the previous where notability had been the only issue and which has been rectified. For proof please do see the discussion page of the article which was there previously over here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buysellads.

The segment over there reads as follows

* Weak delete for lack of sufficient independent coverage by reliable sources. The page does list one article from a Reliable Source, the Boston Herald, but notability requires more than one article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Have added linkages from other wiki articles to counter the status of orphan article even though it is not a criteria for deletion according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan. Also have added two new links to improve the notability. Further feedback will be appreciated. Thank you Venomarv (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

* You are trying very hard, I'll give you that. But there just may not be enough material out there to cite, no matter how hard you try. You are correct that the article will not be deleted for being an orphan; if it is deleted it will be for lack of substantial coverage by independent reliable sources, as required by Wikipedia's notability requirements. I noticed you have a second reference at the article from a Reliable Source, namely the Wall Street Journal Online, but the article doesn't even mention BuySellAds that I could find, so it doesn't help you. --MelanieN (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

So in order to rectify the problem of notability i had to bring in more references to hold the article well if i am not mistaken right? :) Hence i gathered authentic ones from Yahoo finance and also New york times report and included them in the article and corrected a few typos and published it again.

Could you please tell me where i have gone wrong? After working so hard i have built the content for this article and it was rejected the first time around because i needed to have stronger references. And once i got stronger references and put it along, it gets deleted. What am i expected to do here? Am i expected not to repeat the content? Because it was the references and not the content which had the problem last time isn't it? I am finding it very difficult.

Please Advice and Help. Thank you Venomarv (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey there! There were two places you erred here, and it's easy to do when you're starting out so don't worry about it. The first was that you didn't check our reliable source guide. This will tell you what we will and will not accept. Although you did add sources, they were not ones that met our reliable source criteria - which meant that the original problem wasn't fixed. Which unfortunately meant that the article, which was a carbon-copy of the last version except for the added sources, was in violation of our terms of speedy deletion.
 * The second issue was that the content of the article wasn't changed. Say I write an article with the sentence 'User Panyd is silly' - and leave it unsourced. Perhaps when I find a source I can change that to; 'Multiple scholars have called Panyd silly', as the source will have more information and the article will be improved because of it.
 * Does that make sense? The best thing to do going forward would be to re-write the article with reliable sources in your userspace and then have someone review it before you post it again. I'll be happy to take a look if you need it. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Invasion of Banu Qurayza DYK 5X expansion
I dont know exactly what you mean by 5X expansion. But i expanded the article in my sandbox, i made major changes then uploaded. you can see the difference from then to now--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey there! As far I know the DYK rules state that an article's prose must have been 5x expanded in the last ten days for it to qualify for the queue. As far as I can see, the article has been very much expanded but there isn't 5x more prose than there was before. However, the rules keep changing (seems to be on a daily basis at the moment), so if you do find out that I'm wrong - would you please let me know? I'll happily change the review. However, if you want to check your own articles in the meantime, this tool is incredibly helpful. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Berkly Square
Brilliant additions to the article, really interesting :) RafikiSykes (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! And wiki-love to you! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit war
Currently i am engaged with another user in an edit war at the Invasion of Banu Nadir article. Please can you mediate? User claims quoting from a primary source that is directly related is Original Research. Or if were both wrong, please ban us both. He says "you've been told several times to tag the Jizya article for the inclusion of primary sources (though it can be argued that the hadiths quotetd from Sahih Bukhari are regarded as authentic by one group of Muslim scholars and thus a tag is not needed as opposed to Al-Tabari's specific quote that doesn't look like that it was verified by any of the listed scholars in the article). ", i told him that the jizyah article quotes primary sources, summarizing what a quote says. He tells me to tag that article also as it is against wikipolicy--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd rather hear it from them. You've both been given a warning and I've asked you both to put your cases on the article's talk page so that we can get a consensus here. My talk page is not the place for it. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sir/Madam, you should have checked the talk page before giving out warnings and instructions to "lay out the discussion on the talk page". I stated my objections clearly on the talk page here. The article has some serious issues wioth the handling of sources and views and I used the tags to indicate that, but Misconceptions2 has been reverting ever since. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see discussion in talk page yourself. despite talking, problem was not solved--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar edit war
Can you please help mediate in the Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar article where there is also an edit war. User keeps removing an old source from 1850, by the non muslim scholar George Sale, which was republished in 2009. I told him to show me wiki policy which states that old sources are not allowed. Despite this, he keeps removing it, you should see mine and his edit summaries --Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is an antique reference. Republished in 2009 by a non-academic publisher. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was going to give you a few minutes but let's make this clear now. You have not talked on the talk page. You've both been very aggressive on both talk pages and neither of you has addressed the other's points. Now either I can come in and ask questions and sort this out for you; or I can give you the oppurtunity to be mature, level headed adults and discuss for a little while before that needs to happen. If you really want me to come in first, then give me about half an hour and don't touch the page in the meantime please. Please let me know either way.
 * Also, Al-Andalusi, that warning was for edit-warring and it stands. You've both already broken the 3-revert rule, on both articles. Please don't push it, I want a positive outcome here. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, i am leaving questions for the user on the pages talk page (that should help resolve the issue). thanks for your time. check out the tp some time--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but I think this is unfair and you made a quick decision when you responded to his canvassing on your talk page (where he said "if were both wrong, please ban us both" - is this really the language of a committed editor ? please check his block log for edit-warring and you'll understand). For Invasion of Banu Nadir I made my case clear in the talk page right from the beginning, other editors have noted other problems too (again, please check the talk page). For the second article, Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar, the reference was already removed by another editor for being "too antique" here. I knindly ask you to review your warning. Thank you. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did make your case clear. But when Misconceptions2 came back and said that he disagreed with you (in a very obstrusive manner that could be construed as rude), you decided to edit war rather than address his points. I've got a mop, I'm here to help clean up, but I honestly believe that if you talk today, then some sort of consensus can be reached. You just both have to talk before you act. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But you did respond so quickly to his request, by warning me first and requesting that I use the TP, when I already did use the talk page. I'd like to know how you considered the "you don't understand what OR means" to be a response. Really ? I own a copy of Al-Tabari's work and I can clearly see a distortion of the primary 10th century text (please see the talk page for more information). Also, I made the claim that this is a POV fork as the narrative is quite different from the main article, Banu Nadir. We haven't gained anything from your protection of the article. Misconceptions2 created a POVFork from the main artilce (Banu Nadir) and then nominated his own article to DYK. By protecting it, you have left a large number of users unaware of its disputed content. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I did respond quickly to his request, and I did warn you first. That was mere coincidence, as yours was the first talk page I had opened. I would hope you're assuming good faith here? From what I have seen at the AfDs you created for these articles, it is community consensus that they are not POV-forks, and as such what is gained from protection is a chance for you to discuss this issue with Misconceptions2 and whomsoever else wishes to talk about it. If you'd like even more input from outside, why not post the issue here? I'm sure they would love to help you discuss the veracity of the sources used as well as your interpretations of them. You'll notice that I turned down his request for DYK, and that was how misconceptions2 became aware of my presence. Not entirely sure what that has to do with anything, but nevertheless. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am assuming AGF, sorry if that was misunderstood. Actually the edit-war was not over the deletion, as he seemed to have complied with the process after all. But you do realize that he removed 3 tags (disputed, POV and OR) when he hasn't addressed all of them. Do you have any comment regarding that ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say that two (POV and OR) of those tags fall under the dispute regarding the interpretation and use of certain sources, and that this should be brought up with the wider community, and at the very least a consensus on whether or not this is an issue should be reached, before those tags should be put up. I'll put the disputed tag back up as it is indeed disputed. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that and I apologize for any misunderstanding :) I will raise the issue to WikiProject Islam (though I don't expect any help from it as it has been inactive for a while) but in any case, I will respond to Misconceptions2's comments on the article's talk page. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

@Al-A, Lets not use this talk page to argue. Anyway, i have left another question for you at the Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar talk page. The Invasion of Banu Nadir article may or may not have OR, depending on whether the community thinks the sources used are reliable. But your edit summary for adding the tag, primarily that i quoted a primary source, thus according to you it is OR. That is wrong, as William Conolley has explained to you in the Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid) talk page, and he is a well experienced user. If you want to dispute this message, do it at the Masjid al Dirar tp--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, another article with edit-warring over the OR tag, the one where you said "@Al-A, no one wants to argue with you" in response to the OR concerns I raised on the talk page. The handling of Islamic primary sources is different as explained under Manual of Style (Islam-related articles). William is not an authority on Wikipedia policies, on top of that, he is not quite informed with the history of early Islam (doesn't know what hadith means to begin with). I thought Panyd might want to know that Misconceptions2 and William are opposed to the MOS, claiming it's a guideline not a policy to follow, and thus one freely cite primary sources. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just checked that article and both of your contribution histories. If I find one more article you are currently edit warring on I will block both of you for edit warring. This is ridiculous.
 * Deep breath*
 * Now! The MOS is a guideline, and you can use primary sources - just not to establish notability and not to verify facts. That doesn't mean that they are never appropriate, but you should always aim to use reliable secondary sources whereever possible. Is there anything else I should know about? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a question regarding the inclusion of Template:Hadith authenticity in articles that cite hadith (i.e. reports of sayings/actions of the early Muslim community from medieval Islamic primary sources). Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) states:
 * "Articles on hadith should make clear the reliability of the hadith – if they don't, then consider adding Template:Hadith authenticity"
 * This is because medieval Islamic scholars compiled within the same work the authentic and sound reports with the fabricated and weaker ones (while being fully aware of that) and left the last word of assessing the reliability of the report (named hadith) to hadith scholars who would analyse the chains of narrators associated with a particular report to judge its reliability. In fact, we have primary works by scholars that compiled nothing but fabricated and weak reports (see Ibn al-Jawzi's 12th-century work, A Great Collection of Fabricated Traditions). So essentially, quoting medieval Islamic primary sources on hadith is not quite the same as quoting say European primary sources and I think the Template:Hadith authenticity was precisely created to address this issue (and perhaps to avoid adding Template:Primary or Template:OR). Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that sounds like an excellent compromise. I have asked misconceptions2 to come on my talk page. I hope they will agree. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

i dont understand, what is the compromise? If it is that Al-A wants to add the hadith authenticity tag to all pages, then you should know he already did that once, i then reported him to the admin, and me and another user removed every single page he added the hadith authenticity tag. this has been discussed in the Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid) tp, i told the user that i wont always be able to find scholars discussing the authenticity of a specific quote like i was able to in the Expedition of Usama bin Zayd article. It is very hard to find scholars discussing the authenticity of a quote as there are to many. I told him if he finds information about the authenticity of specific quotes then he should add it. Otherwise he shouldnt add the tag, because if he does, that tag maybe there forever. He is also very selective in the articles he added the tags to, basically ones he didnt like. There are 1,000+ articles which quote hadith (quotes and actions of muhammad), yet he only added the tag to the articles i created--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, we are talking about now and what to do with these specific articles. Yes, it may be difficult to find quotes from academics to back up the quotes but isn't that what the tag is for? It alerts editors who visit the page to the potential issue, and increases the chances of them looking for the relevant secondary sources to 'back up' the claims. Isn't that how an article grows?
 * The compromise is that instead of putting OR tags and Primary Source tags on an article where they aren't really needed, a relevant tag is put up; and though you may not like it, it addresses relevant issues at hand. This way, although no one gets what they want, the article gets improved. Make sense? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, relevant tags should be added. If he wants to add the tag, like any other tag that people have various opinions on, then he should discuss it in the talk page, and if users disagree with its addition then it should not be added, in the Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid) talk page, another user also disagreed with his addition. Yet he kept adding it back, and it wasnt just me who reverted him. I really am against adding the hadith authenticity tag as its not always possible to find RS discussing the authenticity of 1 out of 100,000+ quotes attributed to Muhammad from various books. Al-a: find sources discussing the authenticity and add it to the article, otherwise dont add the tag if you cant find a source discussing the authenticity (usually if the quote is from an authentic book, it is considered authentic). Even quotes from books that al-A considers authentic i.e Sahih Bukhari ,is not considered authentic by Shia Muslims. Because Sahih Bukhari is a sunni book, why mention in the article something silly like "Sunni's consider it authentic, Shia's dont", it should be mentioned in the Sahih Bukhari article, where the quote came from, not in articles which quote from it--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I, as a third party with no real interest in the subject matter, just these 3 articles themselves, am telling you that this seems like a highly relevant tag. I do not want Al-A to put it up without consensus, but I also think that your argument that 'we shouldn't put it up because it's difficult to find the relevant souces' doesn't hold any water whatsoever. Why am I wrong? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me just make this clear as well. I am not arguing that every quote from the hadith needs a lengthy discussion about its accuracy (as William Connoley suggested on the talk page). I am arguing that it be backed up by a reliable secondary source where possible, and that if you yourself are unable to provide that source, other editors should be made aware of the article's deficiencies so that they can improve it. What on earth is wrong with that? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What your saying is not what al-Andalusi is saying. Al-A wants wants information about the authenticity of the quotes (but he doesnt care for information about the authenticity of Sahih Bukhari, as he believes that it is authentic). If you want me to back up a quote with secondary sources, i would be happy to do that. I did it in the Invasion of Banu Nadir article (for all quotes except 1) and various others. But the hadith authenticity tag is not the correct tag to use if an articles lacks primary source quotes without secondary sources. That would be the tag. As you know, verifying the authenticity of quotes is not wiki policy, but i dont mind adding secondary sources to back up primary sources. Have i addressed your issue/concern? He may be correct to add  tag in certian cases, that is the most relevant tag i can think of0--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, upgraded compromise. How about you put the secondary sources up, and then if Al-A disagrees with them, he will discuss it either with you on the talk page, or if that doesn't work, on the reliable sources noticeboard, before taking any further action? That way you've done your due diligence in ensuring that the primary sources are backed up, and we avoid an edit war. However, in the cases where the Hadith quotes are used to illustrate a point in the article, but the relevancy of these quotes to the point is not backed up by secondary sources, we add the Hadith tag? (We are just looking to the future here. Please don't come back and talk about what has already been done by either party.)
 * Does that sound reasonable? Or am I getting mixed up? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your getting mixed up (i think), because tag is nothing to do with whether a quote is relavant. The MOISLAM guideline says it is for "Articles on hadith", articles like this Hadith of the succession of Abu Bakr, Hadith of Najd, and more are found at Category:Hadith. Where the authenticity of the quote cited is not discussed. Al-A is justtrying to change the use of the tag. The articles which he once added that tag to, are about battles, not about hadith. it is intended for articles all about a hadith like the ones which start with "Hadith of #####"--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "about battles, not about hadith". Sorry, but I already explained how inaccurate your claim that these are not hadith articles in one of the talk pages, under Template talk:Campaignbox Campaigns of Muhammad. Misconception2 thinks that hadith refers only to the "wise sayings" of Muhammad, which is obviously false as the definition also includes the actions of Muhammad, which includes command of expeditions and battles. And it's quite silly to suggest that this applies only to articles that begin with "Hadith of" as one could easily escape the hadith verification requirement by renaming the existing "Hadith of" article to "Event of" and go like "see, tag not needed anymore, verified content". It's based on content, not naming of article. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's very important to mention that Misconceptions2 and William are opposed to the guideline itself, and not to its application here. They're following their opinions, not the guideline (claiming it's not a policy). William states on the talk page that he sees "no examples where this tag would be useful", while Misconceptions2 has repeatedly expressed opposition to the tag, suggesting its deletion and also said that this whole "'proving the authenticity' is a bad idea"). Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No, i am saying that the tag is for "hadith articles", like the tag claims--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Stuff from me
There is a big mess above; I hope your warnings will do some good. Personally I'd have preferred it if you'd blocked them both; they have been intermittently edit-warring in various places for a while and not doing due diligence in talk page discussion (disclaimer: you'll have noticed I've been editing around there too, and have mostly sided with M2 when it has come down to it). If there is anything you want to discuss with me, please do; but I'd like to note that Al-A misrepresents my opinions in his comments above, so please don't rely on what he says.

As to the HA tag: Al-A spammed that to a large number of articles, and that (similarly to the AFD) looks rather more like revenge than any attempt to improve wikipedia; similarly, I don't think Al-A's insistence that use of primary sources is inevitably OR is useful; all it has done is block discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, it maybe better to ban us both. I dont mind if you ban me, so long as al-A is banned also. It may calm us down.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to bed. Topic ban seems like a good idea but I'll have to ask another administrator to have a look at it in the morning. Much as we're all disagreeing here; thanks to y'all for the good faith and the niceness. That includes Al-A. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * P.s. - Blocks and bans - not for cooling down. That's what cigarettes, whisky and good company are for. Alternatively, a brisk walk. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But i request that if you do ban us both, it should be for a maximum of 1 year. If that is possible--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It won't be up to me misconceptions. It's the community who will decide. I'll let them know you asked though and you'll be given a chance to plead your case. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Panyd, William is determined to oppose every decision I make (he admits that he has been siding with Misconceptions2). Please look at this contradiction: He is now opposing my edits that removed the antique 1850 reference from the article, yet back in July 16, he removed the very same reference stating that it was "too antique". The funny thing is that back then, he claimed that I added it, when in fact it was Misconceptions2 he added the 1850 reference, so clearly in the past, now, and in the future, he is determined to oppose any decision I make even if he appears to contradict himself. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He removed it and i removed it because you wrongly used it, as explained in the talk page. It was not removed from the entire article, only your use of it to say "According to the main account", when it didnt say that. Stop trying to make me and him look like idiots who are against you, when it was explained here why i chose to remove it.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I never used this 1850 reference (and I challenge you to prove the opposite). In fact, it was me who first pointed out that it's an 1850 reference in one of the above sections of the talk page. William did not bother to continue reading, and thought I was expressing my support for its use, so following his "oppose whatever Al-Andalusi" editing style, he quickly removed it. Fortunately I wasn't using it, and now that I wanted to completely remove any "traces" of the antique reference, William opposed it. Do you see the contradiction here ? Not you or William will be able to provide a sensible answer to that. Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You used it here to claim the "In the main account narrated by the majority of scholars", which the soruce didnt say, so was removed by me, but u kept adding it back--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No I didn't, I used this one for the majority claim:
 * Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate Al-A lying about me. As to the "antique" reference (yes, when he recently reverted it using those words I noticed they were mine): Al-A added it. I checked it, and found that it didn't support the text he added, so I reverted him explicitly for the reason source clearly doesn't support claim (as well as being too antique). Either Al-A is being deliberately misleading here, or he really hasn't understood what is going on; neither is good. Anyway, I'll comment at ANI William M. Connolley (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is misleading, and I challenge you to prove that I did use that reference; a history check confirms that it was added by Misconceptions2, and I objected to its use to on the talk page by saying: "remove engage (it comes from an outdated 1850 reference anyway)". On the talk page I made it clear that I was reinstating the following statement (the edit you lined to) "In the main account narrated by the majority of scholars" because it was backed by the following reference that was already referenced in the same paragraph (quotation included):
 * Now that this has been clarified, it goes to show two things: (1) you didn't bother to read the talk page, and (2) inconsistency in your edits, you objected to my edits that used your exact same words to remove the reference, and (3) not WP:AGF Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that this has been clarified, it goes to show two things: (1) you didn't bother to read the talk page, and (2) inconsistency in your edits, you objected to my edits that used your exact same words to remove the reference, and (3) not WP:AGF Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Note

 * Note: Sorry Panyd for diving in, as I was previously involved in similar disputes. I guess your page is turning to a DRN instead :(. As a general point that needs to be clear here, without finger pointing, is that when a scholarly secondary source is provided to support a tiny piece of the WP:OR on a primary source, that doesn't mean that the whole WP:OR should stay (on controversial matters)... I just hope that's clear enough, which I've tried to explain awhile ago with no progress. There has been many source-picking around, so a polite ground of source-decisions (out of edit-warring) would help improve all of the related articles. Many previous DRs already failed, as discussions were going endless in the same cycle (violating WP:OR & WP:DUE). Thanks for your efforts and wish y'all luck.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  00:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Many previous DRs already failed - I don't think that is true. The only DR that anyone has pointed to is Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/archive1, and that is marked a resolved successfully. There has been extensive talk page discussion, but a lot of that has been people talking past each other; some real attempt at DR is needed William M. Connolley (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Compromise
Sorry for drawing you into all this and wasting your time over something so insignificant, I have left a message of compromise on al-A's talk page. here, if he accepts, i think it will go a long way to solving the issues, as all the edits war' were related to adding tags. and me removing them --Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, if that works I'll be delighted! Anything to reach a happy compromise. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that al-A is choosing to ignore my offer of compromise, but it does not matter. As we both stopped edit warring and editing the same article after the page protection expired. I have now cooled down, thanks for your help in trying to make some sort of "peace" between us. If we start edit warring again please consider banning us for 9 months. its what we deserve if we can not compromise--Misconceptions2 (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No I'm not ignoring your request on my talk page. I'm writing my response as we speak, this is not over and I don't know why are you backing off now. Also, what is this ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I added my response here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems like a very poor response to compromise. M2 has attempted to compromise, your response is to give nothing and accept nothing but simply return to the attack William M. Connolley (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I explained why I think Misconceptions2 has not put anything on the table, also your opinion is irrelevant. Anything else ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Vietnamese players deletion
Hi. Seems there were too many cooks in the kitchen when the flood of Vietnamese soccer players were speedied (G6) for removal of diacritical marks from their names. You and myself were a few seconds late and deleted the wrong pages after another admin had deleted (usually within the same minute). I restored all of my errors on these and one of yours as per the OP request. Hope you don't mind, being an uncontroversial G6. the article in question is: Vu Minh Hieu. Cheers! -- Alexf(talk) 13:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all! Thank you for letting me know. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. Case closed. -- Alexf(talk) 15:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Great Backlog Drive T-shirts
Hi, are the T-shirts from the Great Backlog Drive ever going to be sent out? It's been almost six months since your email telling me that "we will send it out ASAP". Just wondering.... Thanks, M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  21:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I am working on it at the moment. If you have any other questions I know that User:Philippe (WMF) will be more than happy to help. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Since you're already looking into it, I won't complicate things by contacting Philippe also. Thanks again, M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  22:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Promoting DYK articles
Just FYI, you don't need to "box" nominations like you have done here. For old nominations (before July 23) the system was just to remove nominations when they are passed or failed, like this. For new nominations (those that use subpages, that look like this in the edit window:

Articles created/expanded on July 24
) for these new nominations, T:TDYK has instructions on how to promote or remove them. (You never have to directly paste that complicated code to make the "box"; it's done automatically when you follow those instructions.)

I understand this is a bit complicated, because we are in the middle of transitioning from the old system to the new one so right now the nominations page has two types of nominations there. Thank you for your patience in all this. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I genuinely appreciate that. However, you'll forgive me if after this evening's attempt at understanding this all, I shoot the messenger? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like what you did at Template talk:Did you know/Iain Blair was correct. (I assume you forgot to add the "subst" the first time, and then did it in the second edit?) For new nominations (those that are on their own 'subpages'), this is all you need to do, you don't need to edit the main T:TDYK page at all (you will see that, after you made that edit to the subpage, the nomination automatically disappeared from T:TDYK, and was replaced with just the line "Promoted: Template talk:Did you know/Iain Blair"). For old nominations, you can just delete the entire nomination like in the second example I showed above. Let me know if you have any problems. Best, r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEFIELD
Can I draw your attention to Misconceptions2's comment on 's talk page:


 * "I notice you just removed some content al-Andalusi has added. Well i suggest that you dont get involved in an edit war with him, as me and him have both been involved in one, and the admins are thinking of banning us (well i was the one who suggested they should ban both of us). But watch out, if he does participate in an edit war, you should report it at the edit war noticeboard before 3 reverts "

Thanks. Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * When you quote someone, it is considered honest to specify if you've modified the quote in any way, which you have. But also: why exactly are you drawing this rather unexceptional comment to anyone's attention? The bit about edit warring is clearly a ref to you, and he, breaking 3RR recently: but why are you dragging that back into the light? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did I change the quote ? You know William, it's very dishonest to falsely accuse people of manipulating quotes when you don't actually have any evidence for this allegation. Here is a challenge for you, produce your evidence of manipulation or keep quite. Ok ? Also, your defence of Misconceptions2 dishonesty and disruptive editing is sicking. Al-Andalusi (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You added the underline William M. Connolley (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Misconceptions2
Hi Panyd, I've just blocked for the reasons given in the ANI thread and in more detail on their talk page. I hope that this isn't stepping on your toes too much, but I think it's a pretty clear cut matter given their history and the concerns raised at the time they were unblocked. I wouldn't consider it wheel warring if you lifted this block pending further discussion (though I think that this would be a waste of time given Misconceptions2's history and self-declared inability to stop acting unacceptably), and of course I have no problems if you'd like to ask other uninvolved admins to review the decision. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I think you're right on this one, he has dug his own grave. I was really hoping to get a lenient end to this, especially considering that they're both good editors, just with obvious hang-ups surrounding this topic, but there's only so much you can do. Thank you so much for taking an interest, I really appreciate it. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 11:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. I think that you did a good job trying to mediate this (which is always a thankless task), but neither of the editors seem to be interested in genuinely moving on from the dispute. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it be entirely inappropriate of me to block Al-A, admittedly for a shorter period of time, for incivility, disruption and edit-warring? This is starting to seem appropriate to me. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Panyd, I don't understand why ? I've consistently used the talk pages on the disputed article. William has accused me twice of lying and dishonesty on your very talk page and I had to respond, if that's what you're talking about. Al-Andalusi (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For Invicility:
 * "It was never removed. Misconceptions2 was dishonest is describing the edit. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)"
 * "Also, your defence of Misconceptions2 dishonesty and disruptive editing is sicking. Al-Andalusi (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)"
 * For Disruption:
 * Nominating an article for AfD to prove a point - for this I am looking at community consensus
 * Repeatedly adding tags to numerous articles without discussion
 * For Edit Warring
 * Consistently, over the period of a week, with no sign of even wanting to resolve the issue until I stepped in.

Sound reasonable? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please allow me to explain, since you've only raised them now :)
 * For Invicility:
 * In describing my edit here, Misconceptions2 told the admins and other editors that I was "censoring" some views, when my edit summary clearly says I "kept it" in the body of the article.
 * For all the articles that were disputed, I pointed out the canvassing @William's talk page with the 1st disputed article (here), 3rd disputed article (here and here), and 4th disputed article (here) and another here and here, to which William responded quickly, siding with Misconceptions2. See William's inconsistency regarding the 1850 reference.
 * For Disruption:
 * The article was created by him, NOT based on existing content from the main article, I don't see why would this be disruption (unless I'm missing something ?). Please note the editor that agrees with me that it's a POV fork.


 * Actually no, I did immediately explain here: Template talk:Campaignbox Campaigns of Muhammad my reasons for adding the hadith tag to numerous articles that were citing primary sources. You came to know that he's opposed to the guideline itself, which is quite different than saying "he didn't discuss it". But I agree that the mass tagging thing was a bad move from my side, as one admin pointed out.


 * For Edit Warring
 * I'll have to disagree with you on this. I raised mutiple issues on ANI: one in July 6 "Unexplained removal of template", and the other July 16 "Repeated removal of tags", to which the admins responded "go discuss on talk page" even though I made it clear that the editor refuses to listen on the talk page. You are the only admin who has shown interest in resolving this. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

For edit warring, don't forget. For incivility, William M. Connolley (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Um no, the first one links to 'Asma' bint Marwan which did not involve you or Misconception2 and has been resolved (in my favour btw, for NPOV views associating terrorism with Islam). The second one should be "incivility" in quotes, as those were (1) allegations made by you, and (2) refused by WP:WQA, your request was archived and no one bothered to look into it. Any more ad hominems ? Now about your statement that I lied ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)