Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:23, 22 July 2014

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

March 2014

Reference Errors on 23 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Islam in Namibia page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ramadhan Greetings!

Dear Septate, inspite of our friction, Happy Ramadhan! Keep me in your prayers. --Peaceworld 15:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Islam in Belgium, you may be blocked from editing. NeilN 09:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Religion in Norway. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. JimRenge (talk) 10:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Religion in Slovakia

I saw your recent edits on and wondered if your claim: "There are an estimated 5,000 Muslims in Slovakia" is verifiable. (Ref. given: Sudor, Karol (2 October 2010). "Mešity majú cestu zarúbanú") When I recognized that this might be a websource without the link, I searched google and found this link which appears to be a blog/no reliable source with a reputation for fact checking. Please clarify why this website is a reliable source and give a translation of the sentence that claims there are an estimated 5,000 Muslims in Slovakia. The burden of proof is on you; unsourced or not reliably sourced claims will be removed. JimRenge (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to religion in Slovakia, the source which I stated is pretty much reliable because it gives a brief description of Muslims in Slovak lands. I got this source from Islam in Slovakia which states that The number of Muslims is unknown but there might be 5000 Muslims in Slovakia. Looks nothing wrong with it. Thanks again.Septate (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC) (copied from my talk page to keep the discussion in one place JimRenge (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC))

I understand from your answer that you can not verify that this website is a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and you did not give a translation of the sentence that claims there are an estimated 5,000 Muslims in Slovakia. (the number 5000 is not in the text). I will remove this claim from both texts. JimRenge (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear JimRenge, I have found another source which is secondary one i.e., it relies on an other source which is also reliable and it states that there are 5000 Muslims in Slovakia.

http://www.islamawareness.net/Europe/Slovakia/slovakia_news0002.html

I think there is no need to use this source because pew research is much more reliable.Septate (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I don`t think you could verify that this new website (http://www.islamawareness.net/Europe/Slovakia/slovakia_news0002.html) or its source (dead link) is a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking. I think you argument was WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I have corrected the articles with statistical data from a reliable source/Pew Research, data for 2010. The higher estimate given, should create no problem for your pro-Muslim POV. JimRenge (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Religion in Norway

Your addition of an oversized picture of a mosque with this edit appears to give WP:UNDUE weight to Islam in this context. Islam is a minority religion in Norway and there is already a picture of a mosque in the corresponding section. When I saw your recent edit on I wondered if your claim: Islam is practiced by 3.4% of Norwegian population, making it the second largest religion in Norway after various forms of Christianity (ref.: Religious communities and life stance communities, 1 January 2013) is verifiable. There is no percentage given in the source you provided. It says there are 120 882 muslims in Norway in January 2013. Could you please explain why you give a number of 3.4%? Inaccurate statistical data will be removed. Happy Ramadhan JimRenge (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Lets continue this discussion on your talk page where it began. I have inserted a copy of your text here JimRenge (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC) :

Thanks a lot JimRenge for pointing out the absence of source. I will provide you source regarding 3.4% figure quickly. Thanks a lot.Septate (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear JimRenge, following reliable source gives an estimate of 3.7% for Muslims in Norway.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/table-religious-composition-by-country-in-percentages/

When it comes to image, I think its not wp:UNDUE because image of a Church is also present on the article. It just depicts the religious diversity of Norway. Look at Religion in Guinea-Bissau, it is an image of a church in the lead despite the fact that Christians are only 10% of total population. I hope you will understand. Happy Ramadhan.Septate (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

What is your concern now? Please tell me about it, I will answer it later. I am currently tired after a long period of fasting and I have to perform long prayers too. Thanks.Septate (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I asked you to explain why you gave a number of 3.4% muslims in Norway using this source (census 2013), because I attempted to understand how you extracted this 3,4% from the source. You prefer not to answer my question and gave a new source PewResearch /estimate for 2010 = 3.7%. I can see no valid reason to substitute the 2013 census data that corresponds to about 2,4% with an estimate (!) from 2010. It looks as if you were cherry-picking sources to get maximum values for Muslims.

The addition of an oversized image of a mosque

Sorry I have to repeat: Your addition of an oversized picture of a mosque with this edit appeared to give WP:UNDUE weight to Islam in this context. "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Islam is a minority religion in Norway and there is already a picture of a mosque in the corresponding section.

Your edits give me the impression that you might have a WP:COI conflict of interest. Your arguments correspond to WP:ICANTHEARYOU.

Please do not rely on administrators not seeing your edits or continually ignoring them. In the long run, you might end up indeffed or topic banned if you don't stop your disruptive editing. Please don`t take it personally and understand that I will react more formally if you continue to edit as if you were not here to build an encyclopedia WP:NOTHERE but to push a Muslim POV. Happy fasting and praying! JimRenge (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Misplaced Pages, as you did at Religion in Norway. JimRenge (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

What a hell are you doing JimRenge? I explained my edits regarding the image (by giving the example of Religion in Guinea-Bissau) and you raised no concern. The pew estimate is not 2010 estimate but in fact 2012 one. Read it carefully again as the date is mentioned on the top. Stop your stupid behaviour. Stop giving me block warnings.Septate (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong: The pew estimate for 2010 (!) was published on their website in December 18, 2012. Quote from the head of the table: "Est. 2010 percent that is Muslim".

I think we should discuss these edits on the talk page of Religion in Norway because other editors of the article may also be interested to give their comments. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baron Omar Rolf von Ehrenfels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Austrian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Your recent editing history at Religion in Croatia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN 12:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@ User:NeilN, see talk:Religion in the Czech Republic#Islam and Buddhism in lede and tell me who is wrong.Septate (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Islam in Switzerland may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Islam in France

Can you please identify where in the sources these statements are made?

• France has the largest number of Muslims in Western Europe.
• Majority of Muslims in France belong to Sunni denomination.

--NeilN 04:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@User:NeilN, thanks for pointing out. I will provide sources quickly.Septate (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@User:NeilN, I have provided sources. Please check them. Thanks.

Hi

Hi mate. My condolences on those who lost their lives on Srebrenica massacre. Hope that no one from your family was murdered by fascists. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 18:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@elmasmelih. My family was safe during the deadly crises. My family was in Una-Sana Canton, when crises started and then we migrated to Australia. Furthurmore, they were not fascists, they were anti-Muslim Orthodox Serbs.Septate (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

My ex gf is Bosnian, their family fled before the war began, she told me that her grandpa sensed something will happen between Serbs and them. Oh and by the way, being anti-Muslim and anti-Bosnian makes them fascists. Take care dude.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 07:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks.Septate (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ahmedabad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sultan Ahmad Shah. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Religion in Egypt

What are you referring to, "not verified"? --NeilN 17:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Peaceworld111. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. NeilN 17:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User:NeilN see Talk:Religion in Russia#"Islam Outside the Arab World" p418 as a source and get the answer.Septate (talk) 17

56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't care. Call another editor a "big fat liar" again and you probably won't like the consequences. --NeilN 17:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Islam in Russia

Please explain why you deleted Ahmadi here. --NeilN 17:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User:NeilN see Talk:Religion in Russia#"Islam Outside the Arab World" p418 as a source and get the answer.Septate (talk) 17

57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

And this is my answer to you. --NeilN 18:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Religion in the United Arab Emirates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sharjah. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014 ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You asked how the proposed limitation would work.

An indefinite revert limitation on all religion-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before you make any content revert (including vandalism), you would be required to first open a discussion on the article talk page, to provide an explanation of your intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion.

You understand what a revert is. Here is an example of two reverts: another editor made this edit, and you reverted it, and then a third editor reverted you.

What you would have to do in this situation would be to post a clear statement on the article talk page saying what you were going to do, and explaining why this was a good idea. Then wait at least 6 hours for discussion. You would be expected to take note of the discussion in deciding whether to make the edit to the article. If there had been no discussion, you could go ahead 6 hours after you posted the statement on the talk page.

You would also have to be careful not to do a revert on an article, if you had done a revert on the same article less than 48 hours before.

The restriction would only apply to religion-related edits.

If you made a mistake (we all do), you would be expected to self-revert as soon as you noticed that you had broken the restriction, or as soon as someone pointed it out to you.

If you broke the restriction you could be blocked for a week for breaking the restriction. And if you kept on breaking it, the blocks might get bigger. (e.g. 1st time 1 week, 2nd time 1 month, etc.)

The reason the restriction would include reverting vandalism, is that I know from another editor's experience how hard it is in the situation to distinguish between vandalism and non-vandalism. The idea is to make things clear, so you do not break the restriction.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)