| Revision as of 23:50, 18 July 2005 editBrandonYusufToropov (talk | contribs)7,035 edits →Hi← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:54, 19 July 2005 edit undoAxon (talk | contribs)2,062 edits RfCNext edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| ::One man's logic is another man's rabbit hole, I'm afraid. I don't see any problem with consulting (and '''discussing''') verifiable sources, of course, but I should tell you here and now that I think the only way out of this thicket is to acknowledge from the opening of the article that the term is a controversial one, and likely to remain so. So with all that said, how would you open the article? Let's discuss it here. ] 23:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC) | ::One man's logic is another man's rabbit hole, I'm afraid. I don't see any problem with consulting (and '''discussing''') verifiable sources, of course, but I should tell you here and now that I think the only way out of this thicket is to acknowledge from the opening of the article that the term is a controversial one, and likely to remain so. So with all that said, how would you open the article? Let's discuss it here. ] 23:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == RfC == | |||
| Please do not vandalise the RfC: keep your remarks in the Discussion or Response sections only otherwise they will be reverted. ] 09:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:54, 19 July 2005
Hi Germen, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thanks for your contributions to the coolest online encyclopedia I know of =). I sure hope you stick around; we're always in need of more people to create new articles and improve the ones we already have. You'll probably find it easiest to start with a tutorial of how the wikipedia works, and you can test stuff for yourself in the sandbox. When you're contributing, you'll probably find the manual of style to be helpful, and you'll also want to remember a couple important guidelines. First, write from a neutral point of view, second, be bold in editing pages, and third, use wikiquette. Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the policies and guidelines page. You might also be interested in how to write a great article and possibly adding some images to your articles.
Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me at my talk page if you have any questions, and you can check out the village pump, where lots of wikipedians hang out and discuss things. If you're looking for something to do, check out the community portal. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing ~~~~.
Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing! --Spangineer (háblame) 16:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
- You're welcome! Hope you enjoy the place, and don't hestiate to ask if you have any questions. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:23, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Please see Misplaced Pages:Undeletion_policy. There is no {{undelete}} template. Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Apologies
Sorry about making the Archive there, I was acting under a misapprehension, no offence was intended. --Irishpunktom\ 23:02, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Hi
I feel like we're really working at cross purposes, and I want to apologize for my role in that.
Would it be possible for us to set up some kind of meaningful dialogue to discuss the language you're hoping to use, before you start reverting things or making major revisions?
I realize Islamophobia is a controversial topic, and that you and I have different views of this issue. Maybe, working together, we could improve the article.
Before we get into another revert war, could I ask you to propose the specific text you've got in mind, and let people discuss it so a consensus can emerge?
I mention this because some of the edits you've made on this and other pages may have come across to others viewing your work as disruptive. It's possible that you've mistakenly categorized major edits as minor edits, for instance, or that you've made edits that some might consider to be vandalization of pages. Finally, it's possible that some could interpret your stance on Talk:Islamophobia as hostile and judgmental towards other editors.
Assuming good faith is a very important part of the process here, as is relying on verifiable sources, especially when it comes to interpreting the Qur'an and Hadith. As you know, people spend years of their lives trying to master the interpretation of these documents, and I know you don't want to try to create your own scholarship on the fly for this page.
Can we start working together to determine where this page should go? BrandonYusufToropov 14:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Brandon, agreed, on one condition. We must both agree to follow logic and verifiable sources. --Germen 22:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- One man's logic is another man's rabbit hole, I'm afraid. I don't see any problem with consulting (and discussing) verifiable sources, of course, but I should tell you here and now that I think the only way out of this thicket is to acknowledge from the opening of the article that the term is a controversial one, and likely to remain so. So with all that said, how would you open the article? Let's discuss it here. BrandonYusufToropov 23:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
RfC
Please do not vandalise the RfC: keep your remarks in the Discussion or Response sections only otherwise they will be reverted. Axon 09:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)