| Revision as of 01:04, 12 November 2006 editOpiner (talk | contribs)1,257 edits →Administrator comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:14, 12 November 2006 edit undoAAA765 (talk | contribs)22,145 edits →Administrator commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| ::Opiner, please outline your neutrality concerns here on the talk page and then proceed to restore the POV tag. You'll surely not have any problems with reverting if you do that being that if your concerns were well founded even I would revert the tag removal. ''(]])'' 01:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | ::Opiner, please outline your neutrality concerns here on the talk page and then proceed to restore the POV tag. You'll surely not have any problems with reverting if you do that being that if your concerns were well founded even I would revert the tag removal. ''(]])'' 01:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::Sounds fair. Theres a lot here and gotta do some stuff to do so wait to later.] 01:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | ::Sounds fair. Theres a lot here and gotta do some stuff to do so wait to later.] 01:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Seems we have reached a consensus. I would be more than interested to hear what Muhammad did which, in his day and time, was backward. This will contradict Watt since Watt says that from the perspective of Muhammad's contemporaries, he was very upright and they didn't find any lack of morality in him. --] 01:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:14, 12 November 2006
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Not neutral article
Look like everything in this article positive for one point of view.Opiner 00:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Such a friendly start! :-) (→Netscott) 00:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Opiner, you can not just add POV tag to an article without explicitly providing sources contradiciting this article. --Aminz 00:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Youre thinking the source template. Do you know what POV standing for? Youre making up the rule again and right away reverting.Opiner 00:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
If you have any source contradicting a sentence written in this article, then please show me. --Aminz 00:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Administrator comment
A little for both sides here: editors don't have to provide sources when they add a POV tag. They should, however, post more of an explanation on the talk page - preferably analysis of specific sections and passages. Durova 00:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Aminz creating this article because on Muhammad he keep trying to make sections with only positive things like Kindness to Animals. Im not kidding he really make that section. When editor try to make it neutral he revert until he break 3RR three times this week. SO he have this article to own and be not neutral.
- Title. Whats a reform is a good change. So only good changes listed here just like what hes doing on Muhammad. Should retitle it Changes under Islam and have both good and bad things to be neutral.Opiner 00:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Opiner, the word reformation doesn't mean inherently good.. there can be reforms that are bad as well (particularly for certain groups). (→Netscott) 00:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Another administrator comment: . --Aminz 00:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Its only been a couple minutes. You didnt give much time did you? Why cant you let the template stay for discussing instead of always revert.Opiner 00:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fine. But please be specific. --Aminz 00:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Opiner, please outline your neutrality concerns here on the talk page and then proceed to restore the POV tag. You'll surely not have any problems with reverting if you do that being that if your concerns were well founded even I would revert the tag removal. (→Netscott) 01:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds fair. Theres a lot here and gotta do some stuff to do so wait to later.Opiner 01:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems we have reached a consensus. I would be more than interested to hear what Muhammad did which, in his day and time, was backward. This will contradict Watt since Watt says that from the perspective of Muhammad's contemporaries, he was very upright and they didn't find any lack of morality in him. --Aminz 01:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)