| Revision as of 20:46, 6 August 2007 editRiskAficionado (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,061 edits comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:04, 11 August 2007 edit undoDhushara (talk | contribs)94 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| :hello, Dhushara. i have looked over some of your good-faith contributions to the article ]. i would like to note that presenting websites (such as dhushara.com or sakina.org) to which you are affiliated may present a ]. ideally, an editor should stay away from utilising any sources or websites which they are affiliated with. also, material inserted needs to comply with our content policies, which includes the ] of insertions through use of appropriate ]. sources used should generally be secondary, ] and of a peer-reviewed/academic nature. if one makes assertions in articles which have no specific basis in the sources, it may very well constitute original research (see ] for more details). on these bases, i may have to review some of the material that has been inserted, and i will try to leave additional related comments on the talk page. if you have any queries, i will be happy to help. regards, ] 20:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | :hello, Dhushara. i have looked over some of your good-faith contributions to the article ]. i would like to note that presenting websites (such as dhushara.com or sakina.org) to which you are affiliated may present a ]. ideally, an editor should stay away from utilising any sources or websites which they are affiliated with. also, material inserted needs to comply with our content policies, which includes the ] of insertions through use of appropriate ]. sources used should generally be secondary, ] and of a peer-reviewed/academic nature. if one makes assertions in articles which have no specific basis in the sources, it may very well constitute original research (see ] for more details). on these bases, i may have to review some of the material that has been inserted, and i will try to leave additional related comments on the talk page. if you have any queries, i will be happy to help. regards, ] 20:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :Hi Itaqallah, Thanks for your comment about Sakina. I am somewhat concerned about the direction of your response and want to raise this with you because it may apply to other articles you are involved with editing. When I came to make a comment in reply, several points became apparent, which raise a measure of concern that you may have a conflict of interest in considering deleting any sections of the Sakina wiki. The grounds you cite are general criteria about referencing and wiki editorship. However I have gone to a degree of care to provide the most authoritative sources for this wiki and to establish as full an understanding as possible of the interlocking threads giving it consistency and validity. You have a specific interest primarily in Islamic issues and are a professed deletionist. There is a recent entry in this talk page expressing concern about your attitude to Karen Armstrong in claiming she is 'unreliable'. This raises the question that you could be using your role to repress critiques of conventional Islamic interpretations, even those citing highly reputable historians, on grounds that you dispute the sources, or claim the tenor of the article is original research, or that a person editing it has a conflict of interest in doing so. I see a major danger in this and question your strategic role in the process. Deletionism is a key instrument of all totalitarian movements which impose social order, whether it is done as outright censorship, or by attempting to raise a consensus to expunge the dissonant sensitive facts on procedural grounds. On the basis of your own argument, one might conclude you could have a conflict of interest in editing pages too closely related to your own professed area of strategic interest in Islam ] 04:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC). | |||
Revision as of 04:04, 11 August 2007
Hi there, Chris. I'd like to welcome you to Misplaced Pages. However, it's important you understand that you shouldn't try to put promotional articles for yourself in the main article space. Your userpage is fine; the "Dhushara" article, however, has been converted into a redirect - eliminating the reference to userpage space. DS 14:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- hello, Dhushara. i have looked over some of your good-faith contributions to the article Sakina. i would like to note that presenting websites (such as dhushara.com or sakina.org) to which you are affiliated may present a conflict of interest. ideally, an editor should stay away from utilising any sources or websites which they are affiliated with. also, material inserted needs to comply with our content policies, which includes the verification of insertions through use of appropriate citations. sources used should generally be secondary, reliable and of a peer-reviewed/academic nature. if one makes assertions in articles which have no specific basis in the sources, it may very well constitute original research (see Misplaced Pages:Original research for more details). on these bases, i may have to review some of the material that has been inserted, and i will try to leave additional related comments on the talk page. if you have any queries, i will be happy to help. regards, ITAQALLAH 20:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Itaqallah, Thanks for your comment about Sakina. I am somewhat concerned about the direction of your response and want to raise this with you because it may apply to other articles you are involved with editing. When I came to make a comment in reply, several points became apparent, which raise a measure of concern that you may have a conflict of interest in considering deleting any sections of the Sakina wiki. The grounds you cite are general criteria about referencing and wiki editorship. However I have gone to a degree of care to provide the most authoritative sources for this wiki and to establish as full an understanding as possible of the interlocking threads giving it consistency and validity. You have a specific interest primarily in Islamic issues and are a professed deletionist. There is a recent entry in this talk page expressing concern about your attitude to Karen Armstrong in claiming she is 'unreliable'. This raises the question that you could be using your role to repress critiques of conventional Islamic interpretations, even those citing highly reputable historians, on grounds that you dispute the sources, or claim the tenor of the article is original research, or that a person editing it has a conflict of interest in doing so. I see a major danger in this and question your strategic role in the process. Deletionism is a key instrument of all totalitarian movements which impose social order, whether it is done as outright censorship, or by attempting to raise a consensus to expunge the dissonant sensitive facts on procedural grounds. On the basis of your own argument, one might conclude you could have a conflict of interest in editing pages too closely related to your own professed area of strategic interest in Islam Dhushara 04:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC).