Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:16, 1 June 2006

archive

Islamic Barnstar Award

Thank you for voting to keep the image for the Islamic Barnstar Award at the May 27 voting page. --JuanMuslim 13:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

An award

question to readers

Is this nn, or should i creat it? Of course, the articel sucks, but im not asking about contents, rather about notability. --Striver 10:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki stalking

Please do not stalk my edits. This is against wiki policy. --Strothra 23:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Im not doning that, im just cheking my watched articles. Are you surprised that i have conspiracy and anti american foreign politics articles on my watch list? Peace. --Striver 23:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what kinds of things you may or may not have in your watchlist. I just wanted to make sure you weren't wikistalking which I believe you probably aren't doing. Just making sure though. --Strothra 23:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, i have not even visited your main page yet. You are welcome back to talk any time. --Striver 23:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks although keep in mind that my main page doesn't exactly give the details of my politics on specific issues which don't neccesarily follow the lines you may assume by reading it. BTW, you may want to keep an eye on your watchlist so that you can put keeps on those articles because I'm putting them up for AfD. Good sportsmanship and all that I guess. --Strothra 23:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning, peace. --Striver 23:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"<Islamic denomination> view of x" vs "<major religion> view of y"_view_of_x"_vs_"<major_religion>_view_of_y"-2006-05-20T23:33:00.000Z">

Islamic denominations are nowhere near as major as...well...a major religion, such as Islam itself. A chosen religion (such as Islam or Christianity) is not as POV as is a faction of that religion (such as Shi'a or Presbyteriansim). Notice how there aren't any pages on "Episcopalian view of z" or "Baptist view of w", or even "Orthodox Jewish view of blahblah". Likewise, I don't feel that there should be any need for "Shi'a view of foo" or "Sunni view of" whatever. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)_view_of_x"_vs_"<major_religion>_view_of_y""> _view_of_x"_vs_"<major_religion>_view_of_y"">

Well, look again:

• Mormon view of Jesus
• Evangelical Christian views of Hanukkah
• Unification Church views of homosexuality

And anyhow, even if you where right that the above article did not exist, i dont agree with you that they should not exist. Why in the worl should the line be drawn there? WHy not call all three worl religions as Abrahamic religions and claim they should not be divided? Is the Bahai faith over the line? They are a Shi'a shootout. And since when does it become POV to have belong to a denominnation, while the religion it self is not POV? Maybe you meant undue weight? No, probobly not. Maybe non-notable? You need to learn what POV means, it means Point Of View, nothing else.--Striver 08:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)_view_of_x"_vs_"<major_religion>_view_of_y""> _view_of_x"_vs_"<major_religion>_view_of_y"">

Striver, here in Misplaced Pages saying "this is POV" is shorthand for "this represents one POV with the exclusion of others", that is, "this violates WP:NPOV". I agree with you that not having a certain kind of articles doesn't mean it's forbidden to create articles of that kind. However, it's important that those articles: 1) do not include original research, 2) are not created just to present a particular POV, especially if that POV is controversial. The relevant guideline here is actually Misplaced Pages:Content forking. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry, that is not the meaning of POV. The meaning of POV is to claim something that is only true from a specific point of view. I know that original research is not wanted here, that is why i source what i write. Regarding your "articles...are not created just to present a particular POV, especially if that POV is controversial", try reading "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them.". Peace. --Striver 18:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: in Misplaced Pages "being POV" is shorthand for "representing only one POV". You needn't quote WP:NPOV. There's a whole section explaining that minority views should receive attention, but not as much attention as majority or generally accepted views. Mind you, this is not a criticism of your articles. I have no knowledge to say whether they're correct or how representative they are. It seems to me that Shi'a views of should be integrated into the articles about , not split apart (= POV forking). But I'm really only here in account of your telling other people to go read the NPOV policy and resorting to defensive language, instead of explaining them why you think the "Shi'a view of..." articles are worthy. Referring to other articles in Misplaced Pages is no good; many articles are unworthy of it and yet persist because nobody notices... —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I finally got around to replying to you. Here we go...

• Mormon view of Jesus--not about the actual view, but about The Living Christ, some declaration thing put out by the Mormons. Therefore it is not OR. Also, the page is titled "The Living Christ".
• Evangelical Christian view of Hannukah--doesn't exist. I tagged it for speedy deletion as empty (which, i might add, it was--it was a broken redirect to nowhere). I don't even know how you found the page, really...
• Unitarian whatever--well, all I can say is that sexuality is a much broader topic than, say, ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib.

--M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 03:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if you ever saw this since your talk page used to be so long, so here it is! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

MSASFU

Creating an article on a local branch of an international organization is not a good idea. However, if there isn't already an article on the Muslim Students Association as an *international* organization, there should be. (I think they are in the Islam in the US article, and possibly in other country articles.) But are you sure that you're the one to write it? Can you be neutral? I believe that they're Salafi-leaning, and Salafis don't like Shi'a. Zora 18:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you where right: Muslim Student Association, thx --Striver 20:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Message?

Was wondering why you didn't give a warning on the reversion , which seems to me to have been vandalism. Or was it not vandalism (perhaps harassment?), or didn't warrant placing the message? I think it's too late now; when I place warning templates I do it at the time I do the revert. Шизомби 23:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure what you mean, i assume you mean that i was the victim of vandalism/harassment. In that case, yes,i view it so. Why i didnt complain? Why bother, im routinly harrased, stalked, called idiot, conspiracy-nutbag, Shi'a-extrem-pov-editor, being blocked, the blocking adming breaking not one, but two rules, and nobody caring... If they didnt care then, why should they care now? --Striver 00:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

please tell me your idia

salam

I guess you aren't from the middle east. If I'm right please read these pages(] and ) and tell me your idea. although you don't like this subject probably, but I want to know if these articles show bad view of Muslim's or not. --Sa.vakilian 04:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sistani

please see this, and tell if its a fair way of describing Sistani?--Irishpunktom\ 14:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC) hm... i think that is more of Zereshk's quarter... ill ask him :) --Striver 14:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)