User talk:Thestick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 RE: Your recent AMA request 2 My email 3 Re: Third holiest site Afd 4 not dead links 5 re: Image:Holygraph.png 6 Re write of Al Aqsa Mosque

[edit] RE: Your recent AMA request

I've looked into the article and agree the current wording of the contested section does not sound particularly NPOV. I have no experience or background in Islamic theology or the political affairs of Jerusalem, but I do have some background in the WP:DR process, which I aquired over the summer in a long term campaign I ran against two openly biased editors. Basically, for advocacy to work, all editors must be able to assume good faith on the part of all participants in a conflict. If you think this is the case, then I can help you articulate your arguments to them and also advise your responses to their queries. Everyone must be committed to working together to resolve whatever POV issues are at stake. This is how the process would work ideally. If you think you can assume good faith on the part of the people whose edits you have been contesting, then the AMA process should work and I would be willing to take your case. If on the other hand the problem has more to do with the personal behavior of any editors who are entirely unwilling or unable to work with others, then I can tell you that the AMA process will not work. If the problem has more to do with personal conduct than with a content issue and seems unsolvable in any other way I will recommend that parties most in accord with WP policies issue Requests for Comment on any suspect users.

If you decide to take me on as your advocate I may be able to communicate with you once or twice a day, at most. I will not be able to communicate Sunday. You can send me an email or communicate with me via my talk page. Best Regards, Amerique 02:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking me on as your advocate. If I may ask a question for my own information, where does the asumption or assertion that this site is "the third holiest" come from? The basis for this claim does not seem to be mentioned in the rest of the article text, and as I don't see the basis for it I don't see the reason for trying to assert that it's not.

Also, removing the section without agreement among collaborators may have been premature. In event the section is put up again, I suggest posting a straw poll at WP:POLLS or an article content Request for Comment at WP:RFC to see where community support lies on the issue, rather than try to revert it again. I think you were acting with good intentions for the project, but it is important not to be seen as acting unilaterally with regards to a content dispute.--Amerique 17:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Thestick, your edit was reverted. Please do not revert in return. I've developed a user page for discussing the issue here: User:Amerique/AMA. On your call, I will try to contact Amoruso and Chesdovi and request them to post their accounts of the issue there, or attempt to address the issue on article's talk page.--Amerique 21:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My email

Dear Thestick. Thanks for you comments at my talk page. I will setup my email soon. I am currently preparing a reply to the discussion page of al-Aqsa mosque [1]. Please allow me sometime. Thanks Almaqdisi 20:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Third holiest site Afd

Hello thestick, I agree that the sourcing on some of the paragraphs needs to be refined, but it doesn't seem to me that the premise of the page is insufficiently sourced to justify deletion. Remember that a page's violation of a policy is usually cause for cleanup, and not deletion. A list may well be in order in addition to this page, but I don't see why it cannot become a neutral and well sourced representation of the plurality of thought in this regard within the diverse Islamic world. Let me know what you think, Tewfik^Talk 20:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If I may butt in here, the problem is not insufficient sourcing, but unreliable sourcing. There are no lack of references here, only a lack of authoritative or reliable ones. Not only that, but Chesdovi's recent edits more clearly render the article a transparent hit piece against the Al Asqa mosque in particular. With all due respect, there is no way such an obvious hack job can at all be justified under WP:V. Please see also WP:NOT, with particular attention to items 1.4, 1.5, and 1.8. That WP is not censored does not mean it can be used as a vehicle to spread unreliable (mis)information. Regards,--Amerique ^dialectics 23:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Woops, I didn't realize I had voted before. Thanks. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] not dead links

sometimes sources don't have web pages for access, it's ok. Amoruso 11:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Image:Holygraph.png

As informative as your graph is it is borderline for disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I would recommend that you remove the image from the article and make the graph a bit more serious (ie: like removing the "this article" wording... which definitely corresponds to the disruption). (→Netscott) 15:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I've removed it, I'll update it with a more serious tone. thestick 15:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll want to include who says what about the value of the prayers in the graph as well (establish the authority of the numbers found therein). (→Netscott) 15:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats already mentioned in the introduction of the article, is it still needed? thestick 15:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

True but it is possible that your graph could be used in other articles, think globally. (→Netscott) 15:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The axes need labeling. One axis should be labeled with the value of a prayer and the other should be "in corresponding mosque (according to Hadith)" or something to that effect. (→Netscott) 15:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've done the best I can with MS Paint, what do you think of it now? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/65/Holygraph.png . thestick 16:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That's better... I suppose the wording would be long to say, "That equivalent value in number of prayers anywhere else for one prayer in the corresponding sites (or mosques) acorrding to Hadith". (→Netscott) 16:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey thats a nice image - Mlaheji 10:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re write of Al Aqsa Mosque

You should consult this with user:Chesdovi and user:Beit Or. Personally, my concerns are with keeping the Twain's quote, removing the word "congregation" that it's not used in English and keeping the modern israeli period to something that reflects Jewish thought as well. Amoruso 12:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with it is that it's not referred to as that in english anywhere and we have myriad of web-sites and book that refer to it as Al Aqsa Mosque. It also says "commonly referred to" in the article. Therefore, it's confusing. Amoruso 12:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes.. and I think that the compound should be mentioned but the article focused on that building, while compound issues dealt in the temple mount article. Amoruso 13:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind discussion of it, I only want the article to make sense and to fit other mentions of the mosque in english in general. Amoruso 13:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)