Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:49, 11 April 2006

Archive 1

Meshed/Mashhad

Did I ever think how offensive must be the spelling of "Warsaw" to the Poles? Frankly no; I am oblivious to lots of things. I was astonished the other day to realize that Bison and Wisent are cognates.

It reminds me of a situation I avoided becoming involved in: There is apparently an identifiable ethnic/religious/linguistic group of people, who have no name that one or another group does not find offensive. How shall we refer to them? I have no idea. It's a good thing that the spelling of Meshed/Mashad is not something we need to resolve on Talk:Dhimmi. We seem to have enough to do already. Tom Harrison 22:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I get it;) Tom Harrison 19:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

"Another point to bear in mind is, if you can cite verses from the Quran, so can all the other editors, Muslim or not." I think the Quran in this context should be treated like a primary source. We should not try to interpret it ourselves, or even try to identify which passages are relavent. It seems to me that would be original research.

If we want to know about Islam, we should cite the opinion of reptuable scholars, not cite the Quran directly. In my comment, I hoped to point out to Aminz(?) that if we are to be allowed to interpret the Quran directly for ourselves, and say what it requires of Muslims, then we are all going to be doing that, not just the Muslim editors. I do not expect that Farhansher, for example, would find that acceptable. Tom Harrison 19:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

Please refrain from editing the article while while I am trying to work on them , to avoid edit conflicts. Thanks. F.a.y. 20:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My Rfc

Please comment on my Rfc. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 02:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Alberuni

Yes, but I don't bother doing it each time, since he edits so regularly. When the time is appropriate, it will be re-set. Jayjg 08:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for pointing it out. I have blocked the user. Tom Harrison 19:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Trolling on talk page

Hello, thanks so much for your help with the article. Is there anything that can be done to prevent the trolling on the talk page? ThanksWanda5088 22:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 05:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Machsom Watch

Hi Pecher, Thank you for your note. I have read your comments on the talk-page, and if I understand you correctly, you object to inserting any implication of causal effect (between A: the existence of MW and B: the IDF implemented trainings.) My response is: as the article is now, it basically reiterate what the Irish Times article says: i.e. it only lists: A, B, without implying that A ->B. Having said that, I must add that I´m reminded of the expression "beeing more Catholic than the Pope" (I´m not sure if you use such an expression in your part of the world?). Our fellow Israeli editors in this case seem to agree that here A->B . (Yes, I know: No Original Research etc..) But anyway, under these circumstances I think it is a rather "mild" version just to list A, B. Hope this made my edit clearer? Regards, Huldra 21:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, yes I quite agree, the root cause is that "the original sentence implies connection without establishing one". But do you see any problem with it the way it is referred to now? IMO the MW article now reflects the same ambiguity as the Irish Times article does. Regards, Huldra 22:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, are you not overambitious (on WP´s behalf) here? As for all the WP articles on the Israel/Palestine issue I have seen/read I would say I could count on one hand the articles which are "clear and unambiguous." I will defend the inclusion of the Irish Times article because A: it gives some balance the half a dozen ref. of critisism which is included in the article, B: (but this is unofficial, off the record, so to speak): the Israeli editors here (who are not known to be very critical of IDF, to put it diplomatically) actually does what Irish Times does not, that is; they make (or establish) the connection between the activities of MW and the response of IDF. But I would not be suprised if there somewhere exist a better, clearer ref. on this issue than the Irish Times article. Regards, Huldra 23:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Jews

Please be reminded of the 3RR rule. black thorn of brethil 22:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Be advised of 3RR rule. --ManiF 22:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Jews Quote

I feel that statements like that really only serve to illustrate a particular POV, I feel we should stick to more encyclopedic passages, like mentioned the massacres and generally the hostile enviorment.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just say accorind to shia customs Jews were considered unclean, and not include specifics.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That is not totally true. It was certain clerics and I don't think that view should be placed on the article. 69.196.139.250 01:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Misleading and personal edit summary

Please do not write misleading edit summaries. I discussed it in detail, pointing out how the version I had inserted in the text respected your reservations, and you did not reply to my last point in the discussion. If anyone is refusing to particpate in a discussion, it is you. Palmiro | Talk 12:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you please detail exactly how you claim the article is (a) not neutral and (b) not accurate? The only disputes I can see are (1) over "allegations" v. "press reports', where your preferred version is in evidence, (2) over how to describe Israeli army checkpoints, where there is if anything a pro-Israeli POV, but no-one arguing against this has requested a tag, and (3), your argument against including the Irish Times quote, which is quite abstruse but does not seem to claim that the article is lacking in neutrality or accuracy.

I have inserted a new section in the Talk page for you to detail what your actual concerns regarding the article's neutrality and accuracy are. Hopefully this will allow us to assess the issues and consider how they may be resolved. Palmiro | Talk 12:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to my comment immediately above. If you cannot detail any arguments to the effect that the article fails ot achieve neutrality or includes inaccurate statements, the tag will have to be removed. Palmiro | Talk 12:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Khomeini

I've added some stuff about Khomeini's views on non-Muslims, but people might try to take them out. Could you keep an eye on that article as well? Aucaman 14:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I don't care. I will do this as long as I can. I am here to push forward the truth and not to gain reputation. --Aminz 09:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if I get blocked, I can always work as an anonymous editor I think. As I said, I don't want to become an administrator or anything that I want to care about gaining reputation. --Aminz 09:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you are reverting my version, don't you? --Aminz 09:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Islamic wiki encyclopedia

Hi Pecher,

I wondered if you could add to this article as I think it is important for wikipedians to know what wikipedia would be like were it subject to Islamic law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Islamic_wiki_encyclopedia

RfA Results and Thanks

Pecher, thank you for your constructive opposition in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. In the meantime, I will do my best to address your concerns in the hope that when the opportunity for adminship arises once again, you will reconsider your position. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Misplaced Pages, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path. --- joturner 05:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion (Excellent to my mind :D )

I think RFC is not a good idea since we are not sure both articles may have some problems. I have a suggestion: All editors involved in this mediation nominate a few editors(not among themselves). They are better to be administrator or at least experienced editors(e.g. Zora) and concede their editing right to their nominated editors. These people will form the editor committee. All the editors have to promise not to edit the articles directly anymore, but just try to convince the editor committee if they want to make any change to the article(The articles can be blocked from editing). The final decisions are however made by the editor committee(maybe voting). I hope that concensus could be achieved easier there. How is my idea? --Aminz 03:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, I have made an slot for you on the mediation page. Please post your opinion there. thx--Aminz 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Martin Kramer and Campus Watch

I like your edits to Martin Kramer and Campus Watch -- I'll keep working on both to increase their professionalism and coverage with your second opinion ensuring its quality. --70.48.240.217 23:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamism article

Please visit the Islamism talk page if you have some spare time and a high tolerance for bullshit. The Islamist-sympathizers (at best) have thrown up a lot of flak, so I apologize if it makes your head spin. Summary: they want to make the page about how Islamism is an unfair term and these people are just harmlessly following their religion. Hostile editors are only two, but are hardcore and ruthless. The article is currently locked by an ill-considered admin decision (I'm working on it), but won't be forever.Timothy Usher 07:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. That would explain a lot. What other admin(s) can I bring into this? The handling of this matter has been distinctly unfair to say the least.Timothy Usher 07:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pecher,

Just to let you know that the Islamism article has been unblocked, and that one of the problem users, MuslimsofUmreka has finally been blocked for personal attacks - Tom Harrison gave him 48 hours, Katefan0 extended it to a week, bless them both. The other problem user on this page is precisely the abusive sock puppeteer behind Deuterium and seems to have gotten a little shy in light of his exposure. So, if you've anything to say about the article, which still needs much work (I'll be on it again tomorrow), you can do it now without being subjected to legal threats, personal attacks, illogical runarounds on the talk page, etc.Timothy Usher 10:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hat tip, Pecher, you're my hero. I was honestly afraid to do it again, seeing how Kyaa the Catlord got banned for "edit warring" (i.e. reverting from undiscussed vandalism) with this problem user. I must warn you, he's shown a preternatural talent for soliciting admin involvement on his behalf. Before they figure out what's going on, naturally, but that could take a day or so. It's unfair, but just a fact that if you confront him, you might be banned. All I can promise is that I'll vouch for your noble deeds as I did with Kyaa.Timothy Usher 14:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Could you please post your opinion on my new suggestion at the mediation page. thx. --Aminz 08:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Freedman quote

Well, the main objection is that the IP editor is trying to do original research; pick claims from various critical articles so he can rebut them himself. In addition, he's obviously trying to choose the easiest statements to rebut. Also, who is she? It would be best to have the article quote only the more noteworthy individuals who/groups which have spoken about it. Jayjg 23:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion on the mediation page

I have replied to your comment" I don't think it sounds like a terribly good idea. Misplaced Pages is by definition an encyclopedia that everyone can edit. I see no reason why I should voluntarily surrender my editing privileges having done nothing wrong and without having been banned by the ArbCom or Jimbo. If someone wishes to show restraint by not editing some articles for some time, then fine with me, but I have no obligation to follow suit. Anyway, the suggestion will have limited practical consequences at the moment because the article Dhimmi is already protected." Please have a look at it. thx. --Aminz 04:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Arabism

Why are you persisting in reverting Anti-Arabism without discussing your changes on the talk page despite considerable opposition? Please try to discuss this issue without getting into a needless revert war. Do you seriously not consider anti-Arabism a form of racism? Deuterium 12:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

La Convivencia

Greetings, that term has actually been around for centuries.. convivencia. From what I know of the term "La Convivencia", the article seems to not contravene WP:NOR. Was there something in particular relative to WP:NOT and that term that you had concerns about? Netscott 17:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Link spam

On the surface they do look like an effort at promotion, but it's simplistic to say they are therefore vandalism and must all be deleted wholesale. The decision should be made on each page. Tom Harrison 22:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend that you add back the ones that you feel are legitimate and add to the articles contents -- that is allowed. --70.48.241.41 22:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Warning to User:70.48.241.41

(copy from User_talk:70.48.241.41)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Pecher 22:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Can you specify exactly what you are referring to? Please note that I was acting in accordance to the recommendation made here: Talk:Martin_Kramer#Is_Martin_Kramer_link_spamming_Wikipedia.3F -- a discussion you were a participant in. Thanks. --70.48.241.41 22:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Link Spam - Why?

Pecher -- I notice you are now reverting the removal of Martin Kramer links. I am not going to engage in an edit war. Please explain your behavior. It may be best to take this to mediation if you feel I am out of line. --70.48.241.41 22:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I explained the situation fully on Martin Kramer's talk page. I took the issue to Misplaced Pages:Requests for investigations: and from there User:Petros471, a member of the counter vandalism unit, wrote "I agree that they are spam. Feel free to revert all additions and warn the IPs (see WP:TT for some templates you can use such as {{spam}}). If they continue report to WP:AIV for blocking. Thanks for helping. Petros471 20:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)"

I repeat, can you please explain your behavior? --70.48.241.41 22:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

check this

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3237529,00.html

Richard Francis Burton

I was not happy that you removed GA status from the article Richard Francis Burton (which was granted only a few days ago) on what I consider to be extremely tenuous grounds. Could you look at what I said in reply and possibly reconsider? --Richard Clegg 00:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Deuterium

Any ideas about what I've posted on WP:ANI re Deuterium? We might also ask among so many other things how Hrana98 knew to go to this page and find this text, but seeing as that's only circumstantial...Timothy Usher 07:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Good advice. I am so naive.Timothy Usher 12:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I realize this is redundant by now, but note also how 24.7.141.159 is perfectly aware of all this: ]

Being aware of my biggest fans is necessary. The two of you have spent far too much time trying to tear me down. If I was really a nobody anon user, then you two would move on. We all know that isn't the case. Keep sniffing me down there, it is nice to have groupies. 24.7.141.159 13:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)