| Revision as of 22:55, 1 November 2005 editChooserr (talk | contribs)3,619 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:59, 1 November 2005 edit undoChooserr (talk | contribs)3,619 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
| I agree that it doesn't pertain, and don't mind you deleting the entry, but I did want to know about the word. It was in a merrian-webster dictionary; I can't remember which one, but will try to find out... ] | I agree that it doesn't pertain, and don't mind you deleting the entry, but I did want to know about the word. It was in a merrian-webster dictionary; I can't remember which one, but will try to find out... ] | ||
| :Wow that was quick...I think it's in a student version...maybe I misspelled it. I'll check in my Rhyming dictionary though. ] | |||
Revision as of 22:59, 1 November 2005
I usually reply to messages on the the talk page of the user who left the message, but sometimes you may find copies of my larger discussions with users here too. |
RfA
Yeah, that formatting is fine with me. Babajobu 14:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Kashmir conflict
go ahead with the renaming --Vyzasatya 22:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
New Template
Isnt it better to have a template that is more accurate? Sorry for not asking everyone first, assumed everyone would agree that the new one for the "Five pilars" and "Roots & branches" articles are better... --Striver 00:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah... I just realized that :/
- Did what you proposed in the Muslim Guild talk page. Ma salam! --Striver 01:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, im leaving things as they are, i gues i have made a good start with the template, and the rest can be finnished with ease by the rest of us.... that is, unless "Somebody" donst manage to delete it all as "shia centric non-sense".... *sight*... --Striver 01:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Really, it wasnt more than i usualy do every day... How do you think i managed to make Sahaba's ancestors all on my own? That took some hard research! I made the template from template:muslim scholars in like 10 minutes... --Striver 01:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Gues "someone" dont agree and thinks its a "abomination"... random... totaly random... --Striver 01:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Ahmadi Muslim movement
user talk:Anonymous editor/Ahmadiyya Movement - Discussion archived since it is so huge'
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
I appreciate your effort to keep this article balanced. About the following: "Ahmadinejad has chosen the most educated government of Iran compared to the previous presidents." Do you have any statistic or a source to back this up? If not, I think it should be reworded as a perception of his supporters, instead of as fact.--Brian Z 16:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hey Brian. I didn't insert that statement, I just reverted the unexplained removal of it by an anonymous IP. Aside from that, I somewhat agree with the statement because Ahmedinejad is well-educated, far more than previous presidents. But like I said, I didn't insert it. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m 16:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oh you meant the government itself. Well I think that would require some research although it is fairly known that Ahmedinejad looked over the past education for positions in his cabinet. I will see what I can find, but I wouldn't exactly mind rewording it slightly. --a.n.o.n.y.m 16:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
T in P
Idleguy keeps on deleting terrorism when the victims are Ahmadi. After several reverts - somehow the reference to Kashmir also disappeared from the introduction. freestylefrappe 01:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Where did you get that precise figure?
Your reverts in Pakistan is confusing. That line is not sourced properly. As someone with knowledge on the subcontinent history will tell you there has been NO exact number specified and rightly so for they are hard to come by. The numbers vary from 250,000 as mentioned by some neutral estimates all the way to millions. The British put it initially at 1 million while India and Pakistan put it at 2 million. A few Pakistani and Indian authors say the death toll was as high as 5 million. The exact demographics of the people killed is not known and any historian talking on this only quotes that an equal number of people (mainly hindus, muslims and a small proportion of sikhs) were killed. Infact it was the darkest moment and statistics on the number of people dying were not given a priority back then. So I don't know how anyone can arrive at the precise 1.4 million figure which you are interested in showing? A mention of 1 million is accepted by both India, Pakistan (and to some extent even Britain). And that's still an estimate, not the accurate figure and no, it does not specify if there were a large number of muslim/hindu/sikh deaths. I hope you understand. Tx Idleguy 04:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Fine. Then there should be no problem in saying estimated 1 to 5 million Muslims, Hindus etc. Btw, I do have knowledge on subcontinent history, after all I have taught classes about it; being from the subcontinent makes no difference. Also I only did one revert, the other was a grammar edit. And obviously not an equal number of each ethnic background were killed, it varies. That is why I proposed keeping "large" number. Thx. --a.n.o.n.y.m 04:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- I have changed it. --a.n.o.n.y.m 04:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Happy Diwali
Wish you Happy Diwali
- P R A D E E P Somani (talk)
Feel free to send me e-mail.
Happy diwali pardeep ....nice picture . F.a.y. 13:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Tag spamming, violation of Misplaced Pages policy
In contradiction to Misplaced Pages policy, you keep adding general tags where subtags are appropriate. You mark kajor edits as minor, again in contradiction of Misplaced Pages policy. This behaviour evidences again, you are not yet suitable as a defender of Misplaced Pages virtues. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 15:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Let me just inform you that removing tags from articles with the excuse of "tag pollution" is not good enough and in fact that is against wiki policy; my revert of the tag removal is fully compliant of wiki policy. If you can reach consensus then the tags can be removed, but so far there is none. In other words, my readding a tag after you deleted it without consensus is anti-vandalism. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m 17:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Revert
The site does not look very professional or worthy of linking. Staxringold 21:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
My RfA
Hi - thank you for your advice. I was also advised by another editor not to respond to statements, unless they are direct questions, so that I wouldn't look confrontational. So I'm taking a careful approach, in which I replied to Zeq's question 4 and also responded to a criticism about my user page, but I'm not sure I want to respond to each and every one of them, such as pointing out that some people who accuse me of having "POV issues" have either 1- had no interaction with me whatsoever, or 2- dislike me because I stood up to one opposing editor's claim that "sexual repression among Palestinians is so high that rape and incest are quite common" and then go on to claim that I have POV issues! I'll try the best I can, but it doesn't look good for me right now. By the way, I am truly sorry that I didn't notice your RfA earlier, my attention was brought to it too late, and I'm sorry for that. Lastly, I was going to thank all those who supported my nomination after the vote was over, but let me just say thank you now in advance! Ramallite 20:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
It makes sense
I agree that it doesn't pertain, and don't mind you deleting the entry, but I did want to know about the word. It was in a merrian-webster dictionary; I can't remember which one, but will try to find out... Chooserr
- Wow that was quick...I think it's in a student version...maybe I misspelled it. I'll check in my Rhyming dictionary though. Chooserr