Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
that posted the original diff's. The anon only re-posted it after william broke blocking policy and ignored it. Seraphim00:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Your point about the content doesn't matter. 3rr only counts reverts, it doesn't deal with content issues. You might have a very valid point as far as the content goes, but you still broke the 3rr. Seraphim00:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: POV pushing
I realize that there may be some unfairness in such a comment, if one is not prepared to further engage in explanations, debates and arguments to support it. However, in the light of some of the protracted, and repetitive arguments that I have seen you engage in, I must admit... I can't be bothered. Sorry. 11:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I simply neither have the time nor desire to get into such discussions, providing many a link and wordy explanations. My last words on this matter.Varga Mila12:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Considering that you brought that up in one of the afds I put up, I just want to say that I challenge that. All of those articles that I put up for afd do qualify the criteria for deletion and I would like to know why you think they didn't (did random family trees with no sourced to meet WP:V deserve to be on Misplaced Pages?). I would also like to know if you think the following qualifies as WP:POINT (or is Striver above Misplaced Pages policy?), and if it does not I would like to know why in my talk page.
And he went through with it as well by putting up Afds for all those articles out of revenge for them putting an afd on his article and without even putting afd on the page history.
When the contibutors to this pages saw what he was doing they went to take off the afd tags that he put up to make a point and he reverted it and again put Rv Vandalism on the edit history.
I was just admiring your userpage and wanted to know exactly how some of your entries constitute hate. Concerning the UK Commissioner’s remarks: So Muslims who wish to throw out the age-old laws, processes, and government of Britain and replace them with pure Islamic law are note hateful, but a commissioner advising those who wish to do so to leave is? —Aiden22:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The comments were concerning a poll conducted in the UK which saw some 60% of Muslim residents convey that they would like to see the current UK government replaced with an Islamic government operating under Sharia. You make it sound as if he basically told all adherent Muslims to leave, which is not the case. —Aiden23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you understand the poll the Commissioner was responding to was not about use of Sharia in daily life, but about the 60% of British Muslims wishing to replace the current British government with one that uses Sharia as its legal basis? You are misrepresenting the topic grossly. —Aiden02:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I am referring to an ICM poll discussed here. Among other things it states: The special poll based on a survey of 500 British Muslims found that a clear majority want Islamic law introduced into this country in civil cases relating to their own community. Some 61 per cent wanted Islamic courts - operating on sharia principles – "so long as the penalties did not contravene British law." Further, 58% of Muslims agree that "despite the right to free speech, In Britain people who insult or criticize Islam should face criminal prosecution." My point is that the Commissioner's remarks were simply directed toward those who want Shariat courts in the stead of current British courts, not to Muslims who wish to adhere to Sharia or any other personal moral code, as your userpage insinuates. Secondly, I really don't see how the comments are 'hateful.' He is basically saying, "If you don't like our country, leave." It has nothing to do with being Muslim or non-Muslim in my mind. —Aiden02:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The point is not the content of the poll, it's your characterization of the Commissioner's comments as "hate" and your attempts to demonize any dissenting opinion and portry Muslims as perpetual victims of hate. Just like how you characterize those who claim Islam is a violent religion as 'hateful' but don't mention people who firebomb embassies and consolutes because of cartoons. But it's obvious you've made up your mind on the issue. Nice talking with you. —Aiden22:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Muslim vs Islam
I dont agree with a single point you made, but I wont fight the move. I really cant see how Muslim world is the correct term. That's like saying Israel is the home base for the "Jew world." KI02:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
No, you're missing my point. It makes more sense to refer to the Jewish world than the Jew world. KI21:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Jyllands Posten cartoon aniconism proposal
Greetings Irishpunktom,
Please see this proposal for changes in the aniconism section.
Btw, nicely done on that block there... you did a good job hurting yourself too, that part made me laugh. The break did me some good though. I'm ready to do some more verbal battling and non-NPOV crushing. :-) Netscott11:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Plagge.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Misplaced Pages (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan05:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
AfDs
When you find information on a topic whose article is up for AfD, info that you believe establishes its notability, e.g. Islamic Center of Irvine, you might consider adding it to the article. Also, your earlier keep votes on Jersey Devil's AfDs of Striver-created articles accused JD of making a point. AFAIK it violates no policies to state that in an AfD (though it doesn't really speak to the reasons stated for the AfD). However your later ones accused him of being on a Crusade. That's a rather more inflammatory accusation to make given the context. I think in the interest of civility you should refrain from that accusation.
Well, hello again Tom! Perhaps you could you elaborate on why you dislike the title please? And recomend a replacement title? please? Veej02:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tom. Sorry to be thick. you added this to the talk page;
POV tag not added by me, it should stay till it can be verified that;This is the most used name for this event (I don't think it is)That the groups in question have all been identified as "Islamist" by a reputable sources.That the event only took place in one location.--Irishpunktom\talk 02:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
So this means that you do object to the title? Please state on the talk page what you think the title should be changed to. Veej02:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to thank you for your contribution on Wikiethics page. We would appreciate your suggestions on improving the policy. As you probably noticed, Arguments and Sections subpages are for improving the policy. Thanks Resid Gulerdem19:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
It is not POV to use a description which someone uses of themself, unless the description is wildly inaccurate. David | Talk17:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
It is indeed true that Peter is a gay rights campaigner. However, gay rights is a subset of human rights, and recently Peter's campaigns have gone much further than merely gay rights. It was always the view of OutRage! (as indeed of the GLF) that gay liberation would mean straight liberation too. To insist on restricting him to gay rights activism would be POV. But for evidence, try the Daily Telegraph of March 10: "Peter Tatchell, the human rights activist, organised ...", or The Sun, February 25: "Outspoken gay human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell" (note the precise wording: his sexuality is gay, but his campaigning is on human rights), or Peter Tatchell's own article in the New Statesman on February 6. This is particularly instructive: "The Liberals also drew attention to my homosexuality and support for gay human rights", "he paid tribute to my human-rights work", "he has the best record on the issues that matter to me: democracy, human rights". So I do not accept your wording. David | Talk19:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
With regard to your recent revert of someone else's edits to the page, have you ever thought that you could partially revert the bit you didn't like rather than blank reverting the whole edit? David | Talk17:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, why in the world did the whole vandilasation joke become such a problem between you and Netscott? Why else would I put in the Police line and chalk outline, and CSI thing on there, as well. It was half joke, half "You know you're not supposed to edit other's userpages, how would you feel if I actually screwed up your userpage with the same reason you edited mine?" Explain yourselves. Now. Crad001000:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you count the amount of times Netscott has used the word "asinine" during his short Misplaced Pages career.. and this inherent need of his to repetitvely reuse the same word extends to others - See what "Netscott words" you can find! He claimed to be a bastian of civility, chastising others for their lack of it, and goes around calling people "idiot", "mentally challanged" and now hes started calling people dicks - nice. --Irishpunktom\ 12:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Your falsehoods never cease. Irishpunktom, because our abilities for argument are not evenly matched I don't see this "debate" going very far. But do your best to at least try to back them up with some proof. I've never called you a "dick", I've cited this very valid WikiMedia "principal" and sent you there. As for the others, please do provide a diff or two. Netscott12:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope I haven't offended any Rajput nutters though. The number of rabid Hindu nationalists on Misplaced Pages never ceases to astonish me. Sikandarji17:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm expanding the article on babur, and tomorrow I shall enter the battles against Hindus, specifically the battle against Rana Sanga, so, i'd like it if you could help and make sure that I remain as NPOV as possible! As it stands the article Rana Sanga clarly is wrong, with a heavy anti-Hindu bias (though not a Pro-Muslim one, curiously)- so yeah, Help would be appreciated if you could provide it, or point me in the direction of where it can be obtained! --Irishpunktom\ 16:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
My reply:
Great grapes
Let us first eat some grapes, and then think of all the other issues. And, please remember rule number 48 of Rules which states that "The truth does not depend on a consensus of opinion." Please also be reminded of the words of William Ralp Inge once said: “Events in the past may be roughly divided into those which probably never happened and those which do not matter. This is what makes the trade of historian so attractive.” --Bhadani17:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Blanket reverting
Do not blanket revert a good faith edit that has added useful material, merely because you dislike some of the other changes. David | Talk20:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Please note that your indirect reverts tantamounts against the spirit of wikipedia. Please assume good faith, and avoid such deletion of contents. --Bhadani15:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
"(rv Davids grossly POVerted entry)" = Personal attack? Seems more like just a humorous play on words...can we say exaggeration? David, ever hear of the phrase "perverted justice"? Is there not something a bit more damning? Netscott22:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I will spell it out. Irishpunktom is saying that I am perverted because I am gay. That is unacceptable. David | Talk22:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
David, I'm sorry but you are wrong... he didn't refer to you but your entry... there is a difference. Netscott22:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
You and Dbiv about to be heavily in violation of Misplaced Pages's WP:3RR policy. I suggest if any editing/reverting in the near future be done by someone else. I suggest getting consensus on it on the talk page before furthur reverting. If any futher revert wars between you two occur, I am reporting it on WP:AN/3RR. Thank you. Moeε23:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi
Hi Irishpunktom, and thank you for taking time to vote on my RfA. I understand that my last 6000+ edits were not sufficient to convince you that edits like some of my early ones would never be repeated again, but I sincerely hope that at some point I would be able to convince you of my transformation. Looking forward to working with you in future. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
A friendly advice
I will request you to please have some more grapes, already supplied to you, and think deeply over your action of uncivil and rude behavior towards me by labeling my roll back as being acting as a PROXY for POV pushers. I recommend that you stop indulging in administrator bashing. I am your friend, and therefore I am giving you a friendly advice. All may not be as nice as me, and may contemplate/ initiate appropriate measures as enshrined in wiki-policies. Please remember the ten commandments for an ideal wikipedian as set forth by SV, which I reproduce below:
Be nice. Praise people when you see things being done well. Write personal notes to people on their talk pages saying what a good edit such-and-such was. You can make someone's day with some positive feedback.
Don't engage in unnecessary personal criticism or personal attacks. At the same time, let people know that you're able and willing to stand up for yourself and your edits, but not to the point of being obnoxious.
Try to be reasonable. If you establish a reputation as a reasonable editor, people will forgive you almost any other quirk. Try not to get on your high horse over an issue. Don't become a single-issue editor. And when you see that an argument has gone decisively against you, walk away no matter how annoyed you are. Never disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point.
Vote for responsible people to become administrators, even if you disagree with them politically.
Vote for articles that are going through the featured-article process. Read them carefully, make constructive suggestions, and give praise where it's due, because it really is harder than it looks to get an article through that peer review.
Try to steer an article that you've written to featured-article status. It's hard work, but it will establish you as a serious editor.
Don't criticize admins unduly and don't jump on admin-attack bandwagons. It's easy to make mistakes as an admin, so be generous in your dealings with them. You'll usually find that they, in turn, will be generous in their dealings with you.
Try to avoid revert wars. Never violate 3RR. Be self-limiting in how many times you revert a page in a day. Try to get consensus on talk before reverting. If you do revert without prior discussion, explain why on talk.
Contribute well-researched, well-referenced content, no matter how humble, to the encyclopedia, and discuss your edits on talk pages. Don't spend all your time on talk, but don't closet yourself away in the encyclopedia either. This is a community. Be part of it.
I love you, and your reputation here, please try to project yourself in edits reflection the global aspiration of wikipedia, I am sure that you are capable and nice person. All the best! --Bhadani05:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Totallydisputed tag on Peter Tatchell
Editors who add this tag to articles must substantiate their reasons for doing so. You have until the end of today to list your precise objections to the article, or this tag will be removed and reapplication will be considered vandalism. David | Talk09:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
As you are the one with the problems with a consensus version, it is up to you and you alone to state your objections. It is not the case that by putting the tag on, you force the article's authors to defend their work. You are the challenger: go ahead and challenge, then others will assess whether the challenge has merit. David | Talk11:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
No. A consensus version is not necessarily the best version. Consensus is a matter of numbers, perfection is not. You have to argue your case for why the consensus version is bad, and everyone is still waiting for you to do that. David | Talk12:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
You're the one adding the tag. You are the one challenging the consensus version. If you have a legitimate challenge it should not be too hard to describe it. Why are you so reluctant to do so? David | Talk13:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Your behaviour is now becoming trollish. There is no "other consensus", there is just your POV version. If you want to claim it is NPOV, fine, go ahead on Talk:Peter Tatchell. If you fail to do so I will remove the tag. I will not respond to any messages from you on my talk page until you outline your case. Disruptive editing is a blockable offence. David | Talk14:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
do you prefer "Islamophobia is a neologism referring to a fear of Islam which leads to hostility toward or prejudice against Muslims as a religious, ethnic or racial group, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution." over "Islamophobia is a neologism referring to a prejudice towards the religion of Islam and its adherents , or by extension to predominantly Muslim peoples and their cultures."?
Since DanielDemaret supports the first definition, if you'd support it, we should "overrule" Netscott. Raphael109:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The article is slowly going the route of POV after so much hard work by editors like myself and others who have strived to keep a page about such a controversial figure NPOV. I have also left comments on Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini. Any help you can provide would be much appreciated. SouthernComfort03:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
3RR
Please see
I am frustrated. Pecher does not accept my arguments though I think they are logical. He even does not argue against them. He just does not accept. I am willing to get blocked at the expense of having my edits on for awhile. If Pecher reverts my edit, he will be also blocked. --Aminz10:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I have also logically argued(in mediation page) that there is no reason that Pecher's edit should be on. I have an NPOV logical support for my action while Pecher does not have any. --Aminz10:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be a nice idea to join the discussion too . Pecher is going on & on with his edits , while we wait for his replies . Its not just 2 articles , there are atleast 5 of them where he has added loads of accusations , citing them as facts . I am retired hurt at the moment . Thanks . F.a.y.16:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Irishpunktom, your recent nomination for Babur to be promoted to good article status has failed on various grounds which have been listed on the article's talk page. Please expand on these comments and re-apply for Good Article Status. Thank you for contributing, keep up the good work, Highway22:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes please :D, just drop a note when you're done and I'll see if it's up to GA level then. It probably will, it was a very close article to begin with (I am known as one of the tougher GA reviewers :P). Good luck with the improvements and I await your message, Highway13:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations! Babur has been promoted to GA status, please keep up the great work. I look forward to your future nominations (no wrestling or baseball pleeease XD) Highway15:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
It wont send me a confirmation mail, and im sure i entered the right email... it sended it to me once, but it didnt work, and i wont send me another :S --Striver22:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
A suggestion (Excellent to my mind :D )
I think RFC is not a good idea since we are not sure if both articles are free from any problems. I have a suggestion: All editors involved in this mediation nominate a few editors(not among themselves). They are better to be administrator or at least experienced editors(e.g. Zora ) and concede their editing right to their nominated editors. These people will form the editor committee. All the editors have to promise not to edit the articles directly anymore, but just try to convince the editor committee if they want to make any change to the article(The articles can be blocked from editing). The final decisions are however made by the editor committee(maybe voting). I hope that concensus could be achieved easier there. How is my idea? Please post your opinion at Thanks --Aminz06:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Irishpunktom, I have made an slot for you on the mediation page. Please post your opinion there. thx--Aminz07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, thnak you for your efforts to improve the articles Babur and Mughals. However, the folloiwng paragraph you have put in the article is wrong - in many ways:
The Mughals were led into India by Babur who had been born in Central Asia in 1483. Babur's victory at Panipat in 1526 established the Mughal Empire and ended the reign of the Delhi Sultanate. ... Babur, the new conqueror of Delhi, had been ruler of Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, for 20 years. Racially, Babur was a Turk with a thin stream of Mongol blood in his veins; therefore, notes Hambly (1968), the term 'Mughal' by which he and his descendants were known in India was really a misnomer. In Persian, the word Mughal, always highly pejorative among the civilized inhabitants of Iran or Mawarannahr, simply means a Mongol. It is clear, however, from Babur's writing that he considered himself a Turk. Although Babur was descended on his mother's side from Chingiz Khan's second son, Chaghatai, it is clear that this Mongol lineage meant less to him than his paternal ancestry which linked him with the great Turkish conqueror, Timur.
Kabul was not the capital of Afghanistan 500 years ago because of a very simple reason: Afghanistan did not exist back then. The nation today known as "Afghanistan" was created in 1919 during the so-called "Anglo-Afghan Wars"; the Pashtun kingdom created by Ahmad Shah Abdali, considered by many as the beginning of modern Afghanistan, was an offspring of many revolts that took place in Persia after the fall of the Safavids. The capital of Afghanistan was Qandahar. It was Timur Shah, 2nd king of Afghanistan, who moved the capital to Kabul.
Timur Khan (Tamerlane) was not a Turk. He was Mongol, a descendant of the Mongol commander Qarachar Noyon (his father Taraghai was the great-grandson of Qarachar Noyon). Timur married into a noble Mongol family, his first wife Bibi Khanym was a direct descendant of Gengiz Khan (that's one of the main reasons why his succcessor and youngest son ,Shah Rukh - born to a Persian concubine of Timur, was not accepted by Mongol nobles and was forced to move his capital from Central-Asia to Persian-dominated Herat). Timur tried very hard to trace his own heritage to Gengiz Khan - he considered himself "Mongol" and not "Turk".
Babur's biography is no proof for his Turkic origin. His heritage, his family's background and his forefathers are well docuemnted in historic scriptures. Writing a biography in a Turkic language is no proof for a Turkic origin. His ancestor, Timur, had his biography written in Persian language, although he himself was an ethnic Mongol and Turkic in language. Timur's descendants, the Timurid Shahs of Persia, were ethnically Persians, almost all of them being born to Persian mothers (starting with Shah Rukh, who himself married the Persian princess Gauhar Shad, mother of Ulugh Beg) - yet, the Timruids are still considered Mongols. And since Babur was also a Timurid prince (though his linage was not the main linage of the family), he was considered to be a Mongol, too. That's where the word "Moghol"/"Mughal" became the name of the dynasty - the Timurids AND Babur were Mongols; not Turks and not Persians, although their culture was deffinitly Islamic (Turco-Persian) and their language Persian.
The Encyclopaedia Iranica is an authoritive scholarly work written by countless experts from all over the world, including "superstars" such as Dr. Nelson Frye, Dr. Nicolas Sims-Williams, Dr. Monika Grohnke, and so on. The article "Babor" in the EIr is written by experts with referrences to other works written by experts. The EIr does not consider Babur a "Turk" and attests that his language, training, and culture was - like that of all Tiumurids - Persian. The language of his biography does not change this fact.
Kabul is now the capital of Afghanistan, and that is what I believe is implied, Obvioulsy it was not the capital when the invasion took place.
We are talking about Babur, and therefore, the word "Afghanistan" has no place in the article. Afghanistan was created 300 years after Babur's death.
Timur was a Turk, and this harps back to previous discussions - He was of the Barlos tribe. This tribe, like many others boasted a Mongol name and ancestry but for all practical purposes it was Turkic. Turki was Timurs' mother tongue, altough he may have known some Persian from the Cultural milieu in which he lived; he almost certainly knew no Mongolian, though Mongol terminology had not quite disappeared from administrative documents and coins.
Timur was a Mongol - that's what he himself claimed, and that's what modern historians today claim. His biography is the main source we have (along with many others). Of course, Chaghatai language was Timur's mother-tongue, however, this does not make the entire dynasty "Turkish", because all of his descendants were native Persian-speakers.
Babur's biography is a primary source, and one of few we have. Babur is a Turco-Mongol, as stated. His Turk origins being far more than his Mongol.
Babur had many different ancestors, including Arabs, Persians, and others. His biography is only ONE of many written documents we have about Babur. He himself wrote many other docuemnts in Persian and - to a lesser degree - in Persian. And even IF Babur were 100% Turkic, that would still not turn an entire dynasty (that lastet until the 19th century!) "Turkish". All of Babur's descendants were Persian-speaking. There is not a single official document of the Mughal era written in Turkish. Babur's son Humayun spent 10 years in Persian exile, married a Persian noble, and brought countless Persian artists, scholars, etc to India (a process which was already begun by his father Babur). You are deffinitly overestimating the "Turkish identity".
OMG ... if this is your opinion, then you're probably not the right person to talk to. The "Encyclopaedia Iranica", which is a grand-project of the Columbia University and officially funded by the American and EU governments is the "bible of Oriental studies"! Only a very few of the EIr authors are actually Iranian or Iranian-speaking (and even less are Persian-speaking). The grand majority of the authors are American and European scholars who teach at world-famous universities, such as Harvard University, Universität Tübingen, or Columbia University! Maybe you should take a look at what scholars from all over the world say about the Encyclopaedia Iranica: Scholars on "Iranica"
You say: The Encyclopaedia Iranica "focuses on the land, life, culture and history of all Iranian peoples and their interaction with other societies.", and thus, as I have said, is the opposite of NPOV
I think you are just rejecting the Encyclopaedia Iranica (an encyclopaedia which is accepted and supported by experts all around the world) because it simply disproves and rejects your claims. With all due respect, but I believe that you are not match for countless of scholars and experts who have written scholarly articles for that encyclopaedia. The EIr is (along with the Encyclopaedia of Islam which is written by the same authors) the "bible of oriental and islamic history" - Misplaced Pages articles that contradict the EI or EIr are wrong and need to be corrected. Your claim - that one paragraph you are trying to push into the article Mughals - very obviously contradicts the EI and EIr (and it contains many minor mistakes as well, such as the claim that "Timur was a Turk", although Timur was clearly a Mongol and even considered himself a Mongol!). I have not reverted your version because of 3RR, yet, I will contact an admin to remove that paragraph and block the article until the disagreement is settled.
Well, we all seem to agree now, much to my relief. Thanks for all your help. For what it's worth I use the Encyclopaedia Iranica as well, and it is an excellent and authoritative source. That said, it is not infallible, and obviously in the case of a subject like Babur they feel they have to justify his inclusion in an Encyclopaedia devoted to the Iranian World, resulting in the passages quoted by Tajik. I think they over-egg the pudding somewhat, and fail to distinguish between Babur and his much more Persianised successors, but we've found an acceptable compromise, so let us live in harmony. Sikandarji18:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I seem to remember that you were involved in a discussion about the Buddha statues and the how and why of their destruction. Then, you'll probably find this interesting: Azate23:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Look who's stalking too
LOL!, nice.... that's a new editiorial reason for deletion, "dubiousness"... that sounds like "I have not logicness for this removal".... Prior to actually reverting your 'dubious' removal I thought I'd give you a chance to explain why you want to remove such well cited material? Netscott23:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Well you may not need to do any explaining after all as it seems that a fellow editor independently came to the conclusion that your removal was dubious. Funny how that is. Netscott00:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
POV editing
Irishpunktom, please know that I actually do agree with you that there are a number of editors who do edit with heavy POV counter to the spirit of NPOV (in anti-muslim/Islam ways) and if you follow my contributions you'll see a case or two on how I've responded to that. Based upon some of the editing I've seen yourself and a number of editors do I'm inclined to think that those 'counter' editors probably feel as if they're in a war and need to enter equally strong and biased counter POV. This type of editing really goes against the spirit of WikiPedia... and it is for this reason that I'm making efforts to council others against such heavy POV editing. If you were to follow my editing contributions I think you'd be hard-pressed to find that I've been anything but balanced in my editing on Islamic/muslim articles.
Thanks for wriring concerning Mughal Empire. As far as that article is concerned, after having followed User:Tajik's logic on that article's talk page and his mention of the Encyclopedia Iranica (and it's reputation), I'm inclined to support his editorial stance on that matter. Netscott10:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Irishpunktom, the discussion on the Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics page is continuing at the personal confict level. If you believe the important of the proposal I would appreciate for your contributions and appearance on the discussion page. Please note that this proposal cannot be completed or become successful without your contributions. Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem03:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted for the simple fact that the section I introduced is a much more accurate representation of who those individuals are. The are not 'military'. I know that many of your edits typically try to glorify Islam but you've got to take the bad with the good Irishpunktom. That section title is as truthful as they come. Netscott13:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Your wikification of Andrew Rowe was so bad faith... that particular Andrew Rowe has no relation to the one that I've cited. Your contention that my section addition is 'messy' is false... it's quite clean if you want to 'clean' the article get rid of the "philosophers" section that has only one individual in it. Netscott13:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I've cleaned it up a bit. There are two important sources for Humayun's reign which I haven't read: Khwandamir's Qanun-e Humayun and Biyazid Biyat's Tadhkira-e Humayun wa Akbar, the latter of which I think you've cited. I need to have a look at these before I make any more changes. Great job so far! Sikandarji16:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Irishpunktom, Anonymous Editor and I worked back and forth last night and came to that version of the article with that section title. Please cease removing it. Netscott16:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Tom, why are you showing up on pages which you have neither edited before nor participated in Talk: on to suddenly involve yourself in edit wars and revert them? It's extremely disruptive, please stop. Thanks. Jayjg 16:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Seconded - please be aware that leaping head-on into someone else's edit war is disruptive, and deliberately disruptive edits can be considered vandalism. Please be careful. Proto||type16:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm just trying to help you avoid the behavior that has gotten you 8 separate blocks for 3RR so far. Jayjg 16:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
You're a sensible chap - why are you behaving like this on NOR? I'm going to unprotect it now Northmeister is blocked; please don't err again there William M. Connolley17:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
NOR
Tom, could I ask you please not to revert in support of the LaRouchies and others at the NOR page? They're trying to install edits that would completely destroy not only NOR, but the V and NPOV policies too. They have no chance of succeeding, because even if they got the support (and they wouldn't), Jimbo would overrule them, so their behavior is disruption pure and simple. The editors backing them up are very new and don't understand the policies (e.g. one of them has 71 edits to articles). They caused chaos yesterday and today between them, and now one has been blocked and the page is protected, so no good has come of it. I'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't support them in this. Cheers, SlimVirgin19:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
"...is a broad undefined term that usually relates to..."? Please.
Pretending for the sake of discussion that this was a sincere attempt to improve the article,
1) There's no problem with broad terms; many articles have them 2) the term is not undefined, as the article makes clear 3) "usually"? Can you explain where and when it doesn't? 4) please actually read the article 5) there is this tab on the top of your WP interface, between the "article" and "edit this page" buttons, called "discussion".Timothy Usher08:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I can see that reverting the changes was probably the best thing to do - I was trying to seek consensus, but I guess that seeking consensus every single time might be counterproductive. So, good work on the revert. --Jakob mark08:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I agree it's not that big of a deal so I don't understand why you've moved it to the bottom. Can you explain why you done so? It's perfectly logical that it is at the start of a section for the purposes of clarity that it is that particular section that needs work (ie: not the entire article). Netscott11:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Let me help you understand, User:Jacoplane added the clean-tag to the external links section based upon what he expressed here. Please replace the clean up tag where he originally placed it. Netscott11:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Linkspam
Irishpunktom, please don't revert my removals of examples of linkspam. Doing so only encourages that type of anti-Misplaced Pages behaviour. Netscott11:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I admit that I didn't realize it at first but in the end my removals were in accord with policies and guidlines for doing so. But you must admit the title of that link was anything but NPOV. Netscott11:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
No denying that, but was moreso curious as to your perspective on that particular link. Regardless, that was a very clear example of linkspamming. Netscott13:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Censorship attempt
Please see this and alter your plans for censorship accordingly... The arcticle does not qualify for speedy deletion because it was created more than 48 hours ago. Netscott14:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
"Playing the victim"? Riiight... there's an icecube's chance in hell of seeing that article deleted. But by all means please continue with your censorship attempts. Netscott14:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
15:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)