Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PelleSmith (talk | contribs) at 17:55, 30 September 2007 (→Islam in the United States). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Qur'anic quote

BrandonYusufToropov, Karl Meier has removed material from your user page which some editors will surely find offensive. It is (at least) uncivil to threaten other editors with eternal torment in Hell. This is being discussed on WP:ANI if you are interested in chiming in. Please do not restore this material; it violates WP:USER and leads to hard feelings without improving the encyclopedia.
More generally, refraining from partisan pronouncements will spare you pointless controversy, help ensure that your contributions are judged according to their merit, and help us all get along.Proabivouac 07:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've asked repeatedly whether it might not have been better simply to have left a civility-affirming request that I remove this quote, and I have gotten either silence or doubletalk in response. I would have been glad to do take it off if someone had taken the trouble to discuss the matter with me. Perhaps Karl Meier, or yourself, or whoever started this little P.C. undertaking could see fit to offer an apology for peremptorily messing with my userpage.

This was the first complaint I ever received about the passage. Is there any other text on my userpage I should expect the Powers That Be to edit for me? BYT 13:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Latino Muslims

You added a referenece that is not in English, therefore not verviable. It will be removed. Padishah5000 14:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please direct me to policy that says that all sources used has to be in English? -- Karl Meier 11:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources must be checkable for readers of this encyclopaedia. Which is in English. Please do not include sources that are not in English and do not have readily available translations. Grace Note 08:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If we need a source to be checked, then we can just ask one of the editors that is able to read and understand the given language. That should be no problem. Also, there is no policy that says that a source has to be in English for us to use it here. -- Karl Meier 17:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks

I have absolutely no idea what your comment refers to. And I have no idea who you are. Kindly do not threaten me again. And dude, don't be writing to me using a template. I'm a long-term, good-faith editor of this encyclopaedia. If you think that's the right way to treat contributors, you need to rethink. Grace Note 08:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Karl, you need to rethink your model of collaboration and communication. Until you've had that rethink, I don't think we have anything further to discuss. Grace Note 02:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting to a version the introduction that I introduced earlier today. Not sure about your accusations though. Addhoc 20:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC on User:Mike18xx

Hi Karl. As you have participated at the ANI discussion regarding the behaviour of the abovementioned user, i just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on themselves in response to the concerns raised during the discussion at the ANI. The RfC is located here. -- FayssalF - 10:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Karl. Have you had a look at this? -- FayssalF - 17:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed it. I guess that his clarifications regarding the issue was what was needed, and that this should solve the dispute and settle the matter. -- Karl Meier 17:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That's correct. -- FayssalF - 17:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Islamophobia

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. ITAQALLAH 20:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have agreed to the mediation. -- Karl Meier 20:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/Islamophobia#Parties.27_agreement_to_Messedrocker.27s_offer. ITAQALLAH 14:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have agreed to that. -- Karl Meier 16:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Seriously

Totally-disputed is template cruft. And it's ugly. --The Cunctator 21:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I just have trouble seeing how complaining about POV and accuracy is significantly different from complaining about just one of them. They're birds of a feather, and fixing one properly necessarily fixes the other. Especially if the question is "does this contribute enough to the general editor/reader to be distinct from {{Disputed}}?" I support atomization in Misplaced Pages content, but consolidation and minimalism in Misplaced Pages procedures.--The Cunctator 22:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for reverting an appearent sock-puppy at Historical persecution by Muslims. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 16:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Misplaced Pages project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Misplaced Pages. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 03:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ben Heine

You seem to have some fans of your Misplaced Pages work. There is a Ben Heine who works as a waiter on the Western Railway Museum's Wildflower Express, but that is all I could find. You may wish to participate in Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_7#Ben_Heine. -- Jreferee 15:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Religion of Peace

I am working on a rewrite of the Religion of Peace at User:Mike Young/Sandbox2 would value your comments on this, and especially any references you can add. Mike Young 13:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:VilksMuhammad.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:VilksMuhammad.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your reverts

Karl, please explain what do you mean by this edit summary say . --Aminz 08:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That he tried to bury the fact that Muhammad starting using her for sexual purposes, by replacing the more well known English term "concubine" with the more technical term "what his right hand possesses", which the average reader is not likely to be familiar with. To restore concubine and wiki-link it to Ma malakat aymanukum would be good for starters. -- Karl Meier 08:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The first one I can very well assure you is a written and explicit part of the account given by Abu Lubaba in Ibn Ishaq translated by Guillaume. The second one, right hand possess, does not translate or define as concubine. Three, the account in ibn Ishaq translated by Guillaume also does not state implicitly or explicitly any understanding that she was a concubine, just another prisoner of war taken by the Muslims, i.e. what right hand possess more correctly means. BTW, right hand possess is linked to its page so there should be no confusion. Jedi Master MIK 11:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or

WP:BLP does not mean you can misrepresent sources. I think you know exactly what you are doing and I am going to take out a user RFC for this. You could have explained your edits on the talk page but have not bothered to do so. Itsmejudith 14:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that anything there is being misrepresented, then correct that without violating NPOV and WP:BLP. The version that you insist on reverting to is absolutely unbalanced. Another thing don't come to my talk page and make threats. If you feel like spending your time writing RfC's, then you can do that, but don't ever come here again and make threats against me. -- Karl Meier 16:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm awfully sorry, but I really do think you should substantiate that belief on the talkpage. I'm afraid a couple of your reverts got me to break 3RR, though I reverted myself immediately, of course. I do invite you to respond to the remarks that are outstanding on the article talkpage, particularly the availability of alternative views, the possibility of refactoring the section, and the relevance of ArbCom precedent. I won't be on WP for some time, (since I've clearly been doing too much!) so I'm sure I'll see a response when I get back.

Cheers! Hornplease 16:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I and other editors have already substantiated and explained what is wrong with your edits on the articles discussion page. On major problem is that they are in violation of WP:BLP. Also, no one is making you violate 3RR, and as I can see that you have been blocked for 3RR violations before and also quite recently, it is reasonable to expect that you are aware of the rule. If you don't like 3RR blocks then the solution is very simple: Don't violate the rule. -- Karl Meier 18:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

PelleSmith's comment

Karl Meier,

I noticed you moved this tag from the head of the entry at Islamofacism to the very end just above the reference list:

{{Citations missing|date=August 2007}}

Since it is easy to see that you are an experienced editor here it is hard to understand what could possibly have possessed you to do so. Please do not play games with content tags. Everybody (including you) knows where those tags go--at the top of an entry or at the top of a section that has unreferenced content in it. You may dispute the accuracy of the statement made by the tag, but that would be an entirely different matter.PelleSmith 17:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are different positions on the issue, and I noticed that for example the Slashdot article, which presumably is visited by a lot of readers and editors had the tag placed at the references section for a long time (now it is for some reason both at the top and at the relevant section, which I believe is absurd). I believe it would be a good solution to place tags at the relevant section, as placing too many tags at the top hurts the layout of articles, and are irrelevant to our readers. As for you making allegations about me "playing games" and what not, I believe that you are also an experienced editor and should be expected to know policies such as WP:AGF and WP:Civil. I do not appreciate your aggressive tone. Anyways, if there is a policy that actually say that the specific tag should be placed at the top and not at the relevant section, then please quote from it. If it is policy, then of course I have to obey it, unless I can create a new consensus, but so far I haven't seen any evidence regarding that. -- Karl Meier 18:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, as an experienced editor I also believe that you should know that it isn't a good idea to add templates such as the above to talk pages, because it mess with our categories. -- Karl Meier 18:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is everywhere. Do you really want me to start listing all the places where this tag is used properly. Your move is the first I've ever seen by anyone to place it in the reference section. Logically it couldn't go there because it comments on how well referenced a section is ... the reference list itself does not need to be referenced. This is pretty common sense. Don't hide behind this WP:CIVIL stuff because someone has called you out on something. Playing games, as far as I know, isn't directly in violation of policy so don't act like I called it what I haven't--vandalism. I'll gladly see if there is any relevant policy here but as I've already stated you know what both consensus on this matter is and what the logic behind the very tag is as well since you do read the English language and the text on the tag is written in English.PelleSmith 18:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The tag says that the article is missing citations, and the section that display the citations used in the article is the ==References== section. As a act of good faith I will wait some time for you to find the relevant policy that support your position, and establish that a consensus regarding this issue exist. In the mean time though, I must again ask you to relax a little, and avoid using any strawman arguments when discussing with me. I haven't said anything about vandalism; what I complained about was you making allegations about me "playing games", when I was simply being bold, and placing the tag at a more appropriate place, where it wasn't as disruptive to the layout of the article. As for "playing games", there is actually a policy against that. It is called WP:Point. -- Karl Meier 18:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Abdul Rahman

Karl Maier why did you remove sourced and relevant content? As you know, wikipedia is not censored. If you have legitimate objections, please state them on talk.Bless sins 19:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Islam in the United States

Thanks Karl..for standing up for neutrality and against the removal of sourced factual content on Islam in the United States. unfortunately, some editors have recently removed, moved or censored factual content (all sourced) to change the article to a certain POV. There is little discussion with most of it going to a different tangent for no apparant reason and also some editors making you repeat your points again and again. There is certainly no consensus as a couple of editors other than me have voiced their concerns in the past. It becomes difficult for editors who want to keep factual accuracy with such edits. I tried to revert them but since they are more than one, I am sure that they will use the policies like WP:3RR to get me blocked. This article really needs some good editors. Thanks for your support. NapoleansSword 14:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There is in fact very very much discussion ongoing about all of this. There has also been several appeals for editors to challenge specific content changes on the talk page so that we can have further discussion as opposed to generalizing (see above). No discussion can be had unless we know what we are discussing, and as I said all of the specific content disputes that have been brought up have been heavily discussed already. Cheers.PelleSmith 17:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion

Karl,

Thanks for you comment on Talk:Islam in the United States. I would like to point out to you however that there has been an ongoing discussion about the material in question for some time now on the very same talk page. I can see how you were unaware of this given that you haven't been editing the entry or engaging the talk page. However, if you are going to come in and revert it would be helpful in the future if you made yourself acquainted with relevant discussions first. Thanks and best.PelleSmith 17:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)