Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:06, 5 March 2007

Talk Page Archive 1 - February 2007

Blanking

Is one way to archive a talk page- but many advise against it. Maybe try learning how to archive would be a good exercise...SatuSuro 07:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Also

Has any one walked you through the wikipedia intro, or WP:NOT, WP:OR, at all? It would appear that doing such might help you understanding other editors response to some of your recent work. Just because something is bleeding obvious to you that dosnt necessarily make it something that necessarily consistutes specific practice or accepted method in creation of articles in Misplaced Pages. SatuSuro 07:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:GRAVELBUMP.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:GRAVELBUMP.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 09:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

User Category for Discussion

A category created by you or to which you have significantly contributed is being considered for deletion, rename, move or merge in accordance with Misplaced Pages's Categories for Discussion policies. This does not mean that any of the userpages in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the User categories for discussion page.
VegaDark 10:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving pages

If you want to move an article to a different title, use the "move" tab. Copy-blank-paste moves make the article look like you wrote it all on your own, which is both immoral and a violation of the GFDL.

Also, contentious moves should be discussed first. I suggest that virtually any move of a page associated with Islam would be contentious.

And finally, the title Islam and Children doesn't follow our capitalisation convention; It should be Islam and children, if indeed there is consensus for the title.

Hesperian 11:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox

A reminder that the use of a sandbox would be of benefit to yourself, and to wikipedia -multiple on-wiki edits are bit like your pointless category creation - a real waste of time SatuSuro 02:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a barnstar for contributing serial unsolicited (& unreciprocated) peevish comments on a user talk page? DavidYork71 05:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox

A reminder that the use of a sandbox would be of benefit to yourself, and to wikipedia -multiple on-wiki edits are bit like your pointless category creation - a real waste of time SatuSuro 02:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a barnstar for contributing serial unsolicited (& unreciprocated) peevish comments on a user talk page? DavidYork71 05:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

NO, and I would not accept it under any circumstance either - however.

• (1) Asking you to use a sandbox is part of what talk pages are about - other editors or admins alert users to correct procedure if you wish to remain an acceptably reasonably behaved member of wikipedia.

If you think you are indeed the 'free agent' that most of your editing to date has reflected, then you must expect the level of steady unsolicited requests to 'behave', and to continue unabated and increasingly by admins

• (2) If you think messages unsolicited are not wanted while you are a user of wikipedia, I strongly recommend you need to use a blog or similar device off wikipedia.

Talk pages are there for exactly that - the terms of the contract that is implied by becoming a member of wikipedia is that you actually take note of what is put on them

• (3) unreciprocated messages re- correct behaviour simply encourage more - no response - further comments

Fortunately WP:Civility and WP:Wikiquette restrict further comment.

I look forward to your reply on these matters, and am most appreciative of the fact that after about 10 talk messages you have taken the trouble to actually acknowledge that you even received them, thats a start! SatuSuro 07:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar for Distraction

Serial, peevish, hitherto-unreciprocated, & unsolicited. If I missed anything out there its distracting. I've thought about whether I should feel apologetic about any of my contributions to developing and initiating wiki articles: and my thoughts were 'uh, nup'. When I've been challenged about verifiability I've added references or made excisions. I'll continue to save my work regularly and repeatedly as best to avoid edit conflict and loss of session data problems.DavidYork71 08:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Category FUK - 'uh, nup' - nah get on who on eath do you think are you kidding ? SatuSuro 09:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

York

Some of your edits are judgmental. We should simply report the facts. "Islam recognized slavery" and "regulated it". That's it. Saying: Islam didn't abolish it is criticism as if it was supposed to do so. --Aminz 07:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:Lead the lead should stand alone and touch all the major points in the article. Please study that. --Aminz 07:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:GravelNPC.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GravelNPC.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages'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:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 08:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk page

Hi DY71,

We can discuss your edits sentence by sentence, achieve consensus and move on. I am not saying all your edits were not proper, just that there were significant undiscussed changes. Cheers, --Aminz 09:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not required to discuss all significant changes beforehand. Arrow740 09:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Aminz and Arrow take notice. Having all my revisions and additions so indiscriminately reverted - by Aminz, and at other times by Itaqallah - makes me feel like one of those people who knew Stalin in the 1920s and then was airbrushed out of all appearance from the photographic records. DavidYork71 09:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

your insertions are a violation of wikipedia policies. your "drafts" belong on your personal space, not in the article. if you continue to add unencyclopedic material and original research, it will simply be reverted. good day. ITAQALLAH 12:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent suppression of travel safety information

User Merbabu has adopted a consistent policy of expurgating references to murders of 90-odd Australians in Indonesia in recent years from this article. These were widely reported occurrences and have some reference to the subject matter. He has claimed 'original research', and 'unreferenced'.

The same user previously has made abusive commentary in edit summaries, arising from his judgement about my presentation of information from DFAT

I have reintroduced this material with my original reference, in the introductory section. My original references were to other wiki articles, and those reference were removed by MichaelJLowe in this edit

It was also claimed that the intro statement of the nature 'deepening Australian AID commitment to Indonesia in recent years', put by me, was 'unreferenced'. I had thought to tag additional references there was superfluous because the ensuing content of article (in the section 'Australian Aid etc' with many references added by me) clearly provides the foundation for that characterisation. For sake of consensus I now have bracketed a hyperlink from that statement to the 'Australian Aid..' section.

The remarks about travel safety have always been referenced (with reference tag and/or quotes) to the Feb 2007 Indonesia DFAT travel advisory. This remains so. DavidYork71 16:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not once removed the referenced travel advisory. Rather I have removed your original research interpretations of it and your own opinionated connection of it to Australian aid. Also, you opinion that Indonesia should provide aid to Australian farmers.

As I have explained every time, this you still fail to provide one single reference for the connections. Once again, i put it to you that such a connection is your own original research, and that the quotes such as the following have no place in an encyclopedia: Despite Australia's significant unreciprocated contributions of development aid to Indonesia over a lengthy period and foreshadowed into the future, Indonesia remains an unsafe environment for Australians This is your own unproven connections and only the Australian govt's assertion that it is unsafe. We cannot report that "it is unsafe" although you may say "the Australian govt advises it is unsafe because A, B, C, etc". Despite your I have not removed referenced material about AUstralia govt warnings. I will continue to remove any statement as "Indonesia is unsafe for AUstralians." This is typical: .

I really don't see what is so difficult about this. I have made a number of suggestions on your now archived talk page. In my opinion you have some fundamental misunderstandings about what a wikipedia article is about. It is not about advancing a position - i've tried to explain this and it is severely frustrating to have to remove the same original research and blatant POV again and again. And I have continually been editing poor writing style. I will now be seeking admins to monitor this issue as it has gone on long enough. Merbabu 06:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a few examples of your edits that have been edited by myself and others - I have removed/edited countless more. After 20 times and yourself making no effort to reply/discuss, i think I am entitled to be just honest and label them rubbish - that is far from 'abusive'...

, , , , , , , , Merbabu 06:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My comments on your recently archived talk page. Merbabu 07:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Opinion

I was wondering, what is your opinion of Misplaced Pages:Attribution#Unpublished synthesis of published material? Hesperian 13:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I pointed that out to David last week. No response. I figure he thinks A + B does actually = C. Merbabu 14:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A,B,C

Spell it out. What is the unverifiable conclusion that you want to stalk my talk page and my conversations with another user to complain about? DavidYork71 14:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the previously provided by both myself and Hesperian? Here is is again Misplaced Pages:Attribution#Unpublished synthesis of published material. Read my posts above, and all my edit summaries, and your archived talk pages. The "A + B ≠ C" issue is but one of several issues with your edits, but to spell it out yet again, I'm looking for the connection between Australian aid and terrorism against Western targets. It needs to reliably sourced, not your own connections. Merbabu 14:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you've now questioned the right of a few people to post on your talk page. My advice would be that if you are going to continue using WP, then you, like everyone else, should just get used to it. Merbabu 14:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

'Connection' doesn't equate to anything i've expressed. Concurrence in a period of time is it feature. Can it be refuted? 2001 to present, Australian aid commitments to Indonesia have multiplied severalfold (references in A-I article. Over the same period of time Indonesia has progressed to being (bar Iraq) the most dangerous country for Australians to visit. Reference there is to widely-reported mass murder atrocites, credible kidnapping threats, embassy bombing, historical content of travel advisories, ... do I have to go on? So those facts finding a place in an article on A-I relations I can support, and am not inclined as others to sulk SO long and SO deep about.

That explained, now its your turn to find the honour to apologise for the smarmy unfounded A+B=C remark, generated from your eavesdropping of my remarks to user Hesp. So the advice then is to aspire to the relevant quality & make your mother proud.

DavidYork71 14:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Indonesia has progressed to being (bar Iraq) the most dangerous country for Australians to visit. What a load on nonsense. If you want to make rubbish claims like this, please provide citations. I presume you have never visited and/or know little of the country. (MichaelJLowe 16:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

Know what you talk about Michael. Although I can't be in every country, i'm guided by the advice of consular authorities who can be. Perhaps you can name for me a country where more Austalians have been murdered and critically wounded by acts of violence last five years than Indonesia. I can give you these tips: not Lebanon, not Iraq, not Columbia, and not Afghanistan. The set of current travel advisories are all in one place which I'll encourage you to review them for contemporary threat assessments from Australians who are living and working there (which doesn't include either of us). PS. tell me if this message copies to your talk page or not.DavidYork71 16:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mate, even the Australian government doesn't place Indonesia on its list of 10 highest risk countries (http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/defer_all.html). The government travel advisories are partly driven by politics. If you want to make claims about higest risk countries for Australian you would need an independent academic study. I can make a plausible claim the highest risk country for Australians is Australia - think about the numbers of Australian dieing there every day due to violence. (MichaelJLowe 16:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

I presume you got the last message and I can reply here. Good research and point taken. I was not aware of this list, just of the content of the Indonesia travel warning and it's comparison to a few other dicey destinations. So Indonesia has a place in the 24 least advisable places to travel not the 10 must-avoids. Would you still say that in any of them as many Australians have been murdered or seriously wounded by what seem to be race-hate attacks in the last several years? In the other 23 countries, putting aside East Timor, I don't see Austalia putting in anywhere near so much resources into the causes of reconstruction, development, and public relations. & remember you can't bitch me out for authoring OR when it's only on my own talk pageDavidYork71 17:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There have only been 2 terrorist attacks in Indonesia which have killed Australians. There have been multiple attacks in USA, UK, Spain, etc as well. Are you advocating cutting ties with these countries? The reasons we should be generous with our aid to Indonesia are: (1) Indonesia has had a recent spate of devastating natural disasters (2) 49.0% of the Indonesians live on less than US$2 per day (3) they are probably our most strategically important neighbor given their geographic location (think Japanese invasion route in World War II) and extremely large population (4) there is a significant lack of understanding and sometimes mistrust between some Australians and Indonesians (but the number of people in Indonesia with the extreme views exhibited by the terrorists is extremely small) (5) we have significant anti-terrorist capabilities we can provide to assist Indonesia. What better way to solve the problems that exist than to engage with the country as much as possible? Regardless of what your views are, you need to ensure they don't creep into the content of the Misplaced Pages articles you are writing as we contend they have been. (MichaelJLowe 19:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

Levy

on Islam and children you have quoted extensively from Levy. could you please provide the passages from Levy's work which you have been citing? in this instance i am referring to Islam_and_children#Child_enslavement. the Encyclopedia of Islam, says the opposite: any child born with at least one parent free is also free. ITAQALLAH 13:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification. you have misread: he is not talking about children borne from the master and his slave. he is talking about children the woman already has. ITAQALLAH 14:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Islam and slavery. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 21:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Your latest edits at Islam and Slavery were too drastic, DY. I reverted for you but I shouldn't have. Itaqallah has corrected my mistake. Arrow740 01:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)