Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:10, 7 October 2007

Welcome!

All users, registered or not, are encouraged to post. All messages, positive/negative, relevent/irrelevent are welcome. But civil messages are more likely to get my attention (and responses), than uncivil ones.

Leave a message at the bottom of a section, or start a section at the bottom of the page, or e-mail me. For discussions up till 15 September, 2007, please see my archives.

Wives

Please don't add content from partisan sources. If you restrict yourself to Watt and the EoI, we can have a reasoned discussion. By flooding the article with partisan sources you make that impossible. Arrow740 23:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

By removing the details of Aisha's age at marriage you lose all credibility with future third parties who will review your edit history. Arrow740 22:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, i noticed some of the dispute on Muhammad's wives which centers around the use of Shibli Nomani (it seems). you should consider taking the issue of Nomani to WP:RSN so that his credentials can be examined by the wider community and hopefully put the issue to rest. what do you think? (ramadan mubarak by the way!) ITAQALLAH 10:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Undercover Mosque

Hi. You caught me mid-revision. I was checking the BBC source, and then restored the quote. If you have further issues regarding anti-semitism, please take them to the talk page, where I responded to you. Thanks. -- Avi 15:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply.

In case you haven't noticed, I replied to your message on my talk page.--C.Logan 03:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pernilla Ouis

Pernilla Ouis, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Pernilla Ouis satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and the Misplaced Pages deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pernilla Ouis and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Pernilla Ouis during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Cruftbane 12:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Criticism of Muhammad. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Gscshoyru 20:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Muhammad

Sorry, I think I may have gotten carried away, just a bit. But I have been using the talk page. I'm trying to reason with users whether sources are reliable or not.

What annoys me is when users claim that the "dispute has been resolved" in order to unprotect the page. One the page is unprotected they come back and engage in the same edit warring that occurred before the page was protected.

I'd like it if you could join the talk page of the article and help us in determining who is a reliable source, and who isn't.Bless sins 20:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

They aren't the only ones who are warring -- you are too. I'm not even going to try to figure out who started it. But you need to discuss this on the talk page and not change the article again until consensus is gained. Period. And if consensus is against you, then give in to consensus, ok? Gscshoyru 20:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Arrow740 also "not change the article again until consensus is gained." Why did you revert my edits? You didn't even make an attempt to discuss changes.Bless sins 20:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly? I reverted because you went over 3RR, though you hadn't been warned yet at the time. So now you've been warned. Someone else reverted me anyway, so no worries. And no, Arrow and the rest also should also not be editing this page. This page needs full protection again... Gscshoyru 20:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

So you know, I'm just responding on my talk page now -- there's more than two people in conversation. Gscshoyru 20:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A tendency you have demonstrated across wikipedia is to make a huge number of changes pushing your POV and then revert-war for weeks when reasonable users oppose them. These are always obvious nonsense, but you post clearly misleading defenses of this material on the talk and then say "per talk" in edit summaries until you're blocked for 3RR or the article is locked. In the future please make smaller changes and discuss them before you provoke a revert war. Arrow740 20:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Caution: In WP:RFPP you have added a duplicate request for page protection and inserted it ahead of the previous request. This is unnecessary and will waste the time of admins who will be dealing with this request. One RFPP per article is sufficient. Taroaldo 20:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the note. The posts were only 1 minute apart, but the second post was inserted below the first, which, based on the time stamps, wouldn't normally happen. Best wishes in continuing to work on the article. I hope all of the editors involved will be able to work collegially for improvement. Cheers! --- Taroaldo 21:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Stillman

You declared in a wavering fashion that you had checked the source and had not found that information. Please tell us what you did find, so that your unconfident statement can be verified. Thanks. Arrow740 20:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Farhat Hashmi

Salaam. Do you not think that we should cite the Pakistan Daily Times in the controversy section since they as an organization ran the editorial by Hassan? A newspaper generally agrees with the statements that it publishes in an editorial I believe. --Rehansalvi 10:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)