User talk:CltFn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Islam in the U.S.

Any further reverts to the article could cause either of us to break the 3rr rule. Please read my edit summary in my second-to-last edit on the article. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? How do the videos support this part of the statement "...have served to project negative images of disaffection not representative of the wider Muslim community in the eyes of witnesses" and why is it that there are only negative videos in the article? BhaiSaab ^talk 17:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why did you reinsert it? BhaiSaab ^talk 21:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I removed the sentence - it has no source. Like I said before "the impact of these displays of fringe groups has not been documented and there is no source provided in this article for their impact." BhaiSaab ^talk 22:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So why do you choose to only use videos of fringe groups that an undocumented noteworthiness or impact? In your efforts to improve the article, have you found no better videos for a useful representation of the Muslim community within the United States than that of some extremists? BhaiSaab ^talk 22:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion of them (Islamic Thinkers Society) is that they are, in contradiction to their name, morons. If you want to source a statement about the presence of a fringe ideology like the ITS in the U.S., the use of a newspaper article about them would have the same effect - would it not? I would not, however, dedicate more than one sentence to them because their presence in the United States has not been significant nor particularly noteworthy. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That documentary is so biased. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the Quran

We're having a dispute there about sources. I know you're busy with other things, but if you have time could you check that out? Arrow740 22:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Relentless - The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East

Your recent edit to Relentless - The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 18:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Arbcom

Perhaps you'd like to look at the "evidence" presented by BhaiSaab. I see some interesting similarities between his dealings with you and those with me.I would welcome any contribution you'd like to make in

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence.

Thanks. Hkelkar 06:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:VidaSamadzai.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:VidaSamadzai.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 01:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:DawnM.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DawnM.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Esposito and Saudi Funding

If you insist on trying to provide a connection between John Esposito and Saudi money then please do so with factual statements. You know as well as anyone that "he", John Esposito, is not "the recipient" of any such money but that Georgetown University and the Center he runs are (hence your statement is FALSE). Also, stating that this money was given to "promote Islam" is an assessement on your part and not part of a version expressed by either Georgetown University, John Esposito or the Saudis. Please provide a reference if you really want to claim so. The reference you are well aware of [[1]] used in the John Esposito entry states no such thing. Thanks.PelleSmith 04:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Faith?

Here is the diff where you yourself introduced said reference from above into the John Esposito article ... [[2]]. So what gives?PelleSmith 04:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your response: That's an interesting theory, but what is it even based on? You think Esposito is friendly to Wahabism? I don't agree, but you know as well as I do that this is not even the point. The point is that good faith edits on Wikipedia do not include a conscious misrepresentation of basic facts. Do you have a reference to support your claim that Esposito himself is the recipient of that money, or that the intent of any of the involved parties is to "promote Islam"? Because you reverted my change claiming that "actually it is absolutely true". Then on my talk page you have defended your edit by claiming that what you said "is based on what Prince Alwaleed Bin Tala said". What exactly did he say? Where can I or any other editor see what he said? You are clearly well aware of the reference above as you added it to the Esposito page yourself, and this reference says no such things. Now if you want to know why I care so much about this. Personally I'm sick of the edit wars in which extremists from both sides of contentious ideological divides act with dishonest intent to promote their respective POV. This has to stop because all such edits sabotage the integrity of Wikipedia.PelleSmith 13:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You know you never did tell me what the Prince said. Its pretty bad form to go around justifying edits with information you know to be unsubstantiated or blatantly false.PelleSmith 05:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess we're all dreaming of the day when we can prove that Esposito isn't a reliable source. Arrow740 07:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:DawnOfTheDead1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DawnOfTheDead1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading edit summaries

Please stop using misleading edit summaries such as "copy edits" when you are make whole or partial reverts. You have been doing this for quite a long time and if you continue I will ask for comment from other editors. Thanks. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack?

CltFn, I looked at the text you indicated and I just can't see that as a personal attack. I don't consider myself warned; I consider myself puzzled. Zora 06:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edit summaries

hello CltFn. if you make reverts or delete material, could you please indicate that in your edit summaries (and even better: justify it) especially when you are clearly aware that other editors may disagree with some of your contributions/removals? thank you. ITAQALLAH 12:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

So is this a recurring problem? Can I second this request and ask you not to just revert several good edits without so much as an explantion as you did here [3].PelleSmith 23:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriel

I don't want to get in an edit war over this. I hope we can find common ground. I think it is clear that some of the material in her biography needs sourcing beyond her own words. The problem is the article expresses her anecdotes as fact while they may be true they need to be backed up with more then just her story. I support Israel completely but if you let a pro Israeli person have these kinds of unsupported anecdotes on their page then an anti Israeli figure can have unsupported anti-Israeli anecdotes on their page which to me is not a good thing. I am going to return the article to the shortened state. Please discuss how we can come to agreement on this, I am not "blanking" with an agenda. Daniel J. Leivick 01:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islam in the United States

CltFn, I've looked over some of the discussion and edit history of the page and I now see that there seems to be an ongoing dispute between you and several other editors of the page regarding changes to the page structure and so on. Even if you have these issues with the page simply reverting changes wholesale to previous versions is not constructive. If the entry is to become better in terms of its factual accuracy and its structure, edits need to be dealt with individually. Personally I like to seperate different edits to make that easier--as I did. Now all I'm asking is for you to look at these edits seperately and to explain the problems with any of them, or else refrain from reverting them under some blanket revert to an older version. All i did was try to improve on the factual accuracy, the sentence and paragraph structure, and in one instance the NPOV of the article as it was when I saw it. Thanks.PelleSmith 16:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok well revert wars are rarely productive, and they frequently undermine the efforts of editors who are not part of them, because warring editors just keep on reverting to their own favorite versions instead of taking into account possibly good changes. Thank you for at least aknowledging that I had some good edits. Also simply reverting to a previous version is the lazy way of trying to accomplish something like keeping NPOV. If an editor is not willing to take the time to understand the edits of others before acting upon them then maybe they don't have the time to edit on that page. Lets not undermine the project of wikipedia because of a squabble.PelleSmith 12:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You are involved in a request for comment. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image sourcing

You have stopped sourcing the images again. Most of them are not your own scans and for the screenshots--you don't mention what they are from... and they don't appear to be clean DVD captures... you have to source your stuff. We've been over this many times. Please go back and do that for all of your new uploads... it should be a matter of habit by now. gren グレン 09:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine that you take them from divx rips you have (I think). And, that's what I figured... but, you have to put it on the page since everyone needs to know--just not me. No harm done, just wanted to make sure you didn't forget :) --gren グレン 06:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiIslam

Hi CltFn. It great to see that you are still doing a lot of much needed work around here! Please keep up the good work.

One thing that I thought that I would mention to you, is this new project that is using the Wikimedia software: http://www.wikiislam.org/index.php/Main_Page . Hopefully the project will grow and expand and become a great source of information regarding Islam in the near future. I don't know if you have noticed it already, and I don't know of you are interested in something like that, but still I thought I would just let you know about it. -- Karl Meier 18:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for Criticism of the Quran

Could you comment here? Arrow740 13:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your note on my user talk page re the RFC

Thanks for posting the note to my user talk page. I have added to my comments in the RfC, based on the change you made in your response section; I hope that is satisfactory. John Broughton | Talk 17:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD appropriateness

The AfD was archived by User:Mackensen. Once an AfD is archived it is generally not to be edited. I suggest you contact User:Mackensen about adding a count to the archive. (→Netscott) 04:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please respond at Talk:Islam in the United States

I'm not sure about your recent addition to the entry, however I have not reverted it. Please respond to the comment on the talk page. Thanks.PelleSmith 03:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I have reverted sections of the addition that were false (see below) and/or that in accordance with the wikilinks and the reference showed no connection to Islam.PelleSmith 03:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I also implore you to either read your sources a bit better OR to refrain from willfully putting up false information in the entry which ever one of the two it was you did here, when you wrote "To date over 168 Muslims in the US have been charged since Sept. 11, 2001, in connection with terrorism or terrorism-related investigations". We will all benefit from a little more care taken in editing. Thanks.PelleSmith 03:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answering-Islam.org

Do you know what happened to the article about that? Arrow740 05:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Anti-Islam writers

You should put it up for CfD if you're going to remove it from articles. If it's not deleted someone can just re-add it when they want. I am not going to put it up for CfD because I would inevitably bring it into a debate on Critics of Islam too which I think is far too vague to have any meaning as a category. gren グレン 13:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can you stop trying to remove Scientology from the list?

CltFn, why do you keep on trying to remove the stat about Scientology from the CBS survey data you put innto the Islam in the United States page a while ago? And I'm not asking about the video, i'd rather stay clear of that debate. But its annoying when you keep on removing the Scientology figure. Its part of the survey data. Don't remove it again please. Have a good one.PelleSmith 17:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/l/t/User_talk%7ECltFn_58f0.html"