| Revision as of 12:50, 4 April 2011 editWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,017 edits →My talk: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:56, 4 April 2011 edit undoAquib American Muslim (talk | contribs)2,681 edits →My talk: I don't think user talk pages are useful when the owner edits the comments of other editorsNext edit → | ||
| Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
| and here: ] | and here: ] | ||
| == My talk == | |||
| You're welcome to post on my talk page, while you're saying something useful. | |||
| However, saying ''I won't waste my time debating the bigger questions or defending myself here'' isn't useful, so don't trouble yourself to write such stuff ] (]) 12:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:56, 4 April 2011
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| This is Aquib American Muslim's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
On Misplaced Pages
A general conversation on Misplaced Pages processes
Truth Lies Here
Activism inside Misplaced Pages
A very interesting essay on Activism
RfC request Parallel to your ArbCom request
Dear Aquib: Since you, Wiqi, pjoef et al. seem to agree that we need to get away from personalizing the discussion about individual editors' edits (unless they prevent everyone from broadening the issue, of course), I saw your note announcing the ArbCom request at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85 and asking that future talk page discussion on the issue be posted there. Accordingly, I have posted a request for a new RfC parallel or to supersede the old Jagged RfC (the new RfC need not eliminate the old RfC since the issues are different now and not confined to one user, so I'm pretty this can proceed regardless of how ArbCom handles it.)
A Copy of My Request is located on Pjoef's page (I'd post it here too, but I already posted it on the Jagged 85 page here.
I also asked them how to start one. I'm unlikely to get much help on that page given what I say is the rationale for an new RfC, but I imagine it simply entails copying the bullet points made in that reply and posting them on the main RfC page using the template provided?
The problem is, I'd still need help canvassing the relevant Wiki Projects (Middle Ages, Islam, History of Science, Mathematics, Philosophy) because their input is what is missing and desperately needed. In fact, I wouldn't know how to do that part, which is kind of crucial to avoid moving past the same-old, same-old debate.
Anyone know how / willing to canvass the relevant Wikiprojects if I go ahead with the RfC?
Keep in mind that the new RfC could factor into how ArbCom handles the issue (I don't know how, but positively I hope.) Yclept:Berr (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Yclept, my appeal to ArbCom will be to modify the Jag RFC/U, and I have the material for the initial appeal. It is coming along well although 500 words is a small space to word the initial appeal and I need to back it up with diffs. It is a holistic appeal, which would address many of the same areas yours probably will. Since I have been involved for a year, it will have a lot of material. If you turn up more useful information it could possibly feed into the ArbCom appeal, although it might cause some confusion among the community. Would you like to see a rough draft of the appeal? I can email it to you. Thanks -Aquib (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just let me know if ArbCom considers itself the proper forum to modify a pre-existing RFC, because my feeling (just a hunch) is that they would want to start a new RFC either user-based or issue-based (probably not both), or else keep the existing RFC with mission unchanged. And if that's the case it's easier to just propose one, isn't it? Can the relevant wikiprojects be canvassed by ArbCom? I'm not familiar with the exact scope of what they do. I've had a major work issue come up in Real Life that may take me back out of the discussion at least for awhile, so I may not see your reply. But I agree you guys know much more about what's going on with this issue, I'm just not sure if the current approach will work. Yclept:Berr (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case
Hi, I've removed your request because it blank. If you have something that you need ArbCom to look at, re-submit your request, but fill in the details. At minimum, they'd need to know who is involved and what the dispute concerns before they can consider helping you. You can use the preview button if you like to view the blank request and then fill in the details from there. <Casename> at the top should be replaced by the name of the case (for example, if you were taking me to ArbCom, it would be titled HJ Mitchell), In username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), one should be replaced with your username and the others with the usernames of the other people involved. If you need a hand, feel free to contact me or one of ArbCom's clerks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, -Aquib (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- You've notified yourself, how sweet. I've removed the "WMC" account - clearly, WMC is going to say the same thing as me. If you really insist you can put it back William M. Connolley (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Jagged 85 cleanup: article stubbing
Hello. You are invited to take part in this vote concerning the clean-up effort in connectuion with Jagged 85's RFC/U. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Names
Re : ah go on, at least spell my name right William M. Connolley (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh no, I am so sorry. I worked on that thing all day. Never trust spell check. -Aquib (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Other prophets
I recognized that many people have classfied as prophets in Islamic literature outside the Qur'an. Tell me if this template is good:
| Extra-Quranic prophets of Islam | |
|---|---|
| In Stories of the Prophets | |
| In Islamic tradition | |
| In Quranic exegesis | |
| Italics = While the figure has been revered by many Muslims as a saint, status as a prophet is not accepted by all. | |
--Imadjafar (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wow br Imad, yes this is a good template. -Aquib (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Haha, thank you. If you need the references for the figures, I can provide them, as to which Islamic documents list them as prophets. So, do you think any figures have been missed? Should I start attaching the table to the pages? -Imadjafar (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Science in the Islamic Golden Age
Please participate in the following discussion: Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#New Categories
and here: Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 2#Islamic Golden Age