User talk:Sefringle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sefringle is busy in real life and doesn't respond swiftly to queries.


Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion_.28untainted.29

You voiced your opinion in the original straw poll which has caused some confusion. Please do the same in a new version, Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion_.28untainted.29, which should be clear and allow us to better assess consensus. gren グレン 22:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Poll on every little issue

Please sign if any of these things applies to your understanding of this issue. Please put you name under all of the options you think would be acceptable. You can sign all or none of these, I'm hoping this will give us a more-fine grained understanding of the issue. [1]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Futurebird (talk • contribs).

[edit] Marshall Hodgson

The article doesn't cite its sources? How's that? There's a 'Further reading' section at the bottom that cites the main source for the article: Rethinking World History contains an introduction by Edmund Burke III, with biographical information on Hodgson. As for Hodgson's ideas, those were best articulated by Hodgson himself; you'll find many of his seminal articles in that same tome. I strongly recommend you read them. I also hope you agree that the box you added should be removed. RCSB 22:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think the box should be removed. I see no reference tags that indicate the source. However, I found the better template: {{nofootnote}}.

--Sefringle 22:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The 'Further reading' section references what has been written above it. Many scholarly works follow this convention. It isn't necessary to have tags, when those would all point to the same reference. RCSB 22:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
In that case we have a different problem. Articles are supposed to have multiple sources to show notability. That is why I am tagging it with {{Onesource}}.--Sefringle 22:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language of the Qur'an

I restored the mention of a claim about the language of the Noble Qur'an being Quraysh dialect, base on a book by a respected Polish professor. Please don't remove it. This theory is not my invention Al-Bargit 12:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Nice work finding sources recently. Arrow740 06:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isaac, Abraham, Ishmael, Jacob, etc etc

Can you help with sourcing these articles. They are in a horrible situation. --Aminz 04:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You removal of some material

You removed some material [2] calling it "conspiracy data". It's not conspiracy data and is probably more less far-fetched then the impression that the Islamic faith (with its 1.2 billion followers) is inherently antiSemitic.Bless sins 16:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt BBC would misquote Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais. Claiming he did is a conspiracy theory. Not to mention the site that mentioned this is not a reliable soruce.--Sefringle 02:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I am only presenting the allegation as the view of Muslim Council of Britain, not saying that this view is true. Also look at the BBC page in question. It says "This should be checked against transmission for accuracy and to ensure the clear identification of individual speakers." That again casts a slight doubt on the page, since BBC itself isn't sure of its acuracy.
Finally, there are many conspiracy theories on the Islam and antiSemitism article, including that the Islamic faith (with its 1.2billion followers) is inherently antiSemitic. You don't find that a conspiracy theory?Bless sins 04:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
No, not really. I consiter it an opposing viewpoint, especially since the majority of muslims (especially in the middle east) have a negative view of judiasm and thus are antisemitic[3].--Sefringle 04:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
"since the majority of muslims (especially in the middle east) have a negative view of judiasm and thus are antisemitic." Excuse me?!!???!!?! What is your definition of "anti-semitism". --Aminz 09:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I base this conclusion on a doccumentary that aired on PBS called Anti-Semitism in the 21st Century: The Resurgence--Sefringle 22:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, please explain you edit here, which you explained as "not logical without this". In you edit, you removed two links,

Neither of the two links explicitly talk about antiSemitism, and neither of the two makes any explicit comments about the Islamic faith. Could it be that you mistakenly added those links? If so, please remove them.Bless sins 04:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this.Bless sins 04:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

You don't typically want to remove _all_ of the materials from a page. You should probably leave the last few topics which were fairly new. gren グレン 03:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please !

Hello there ! Please do not remove texts, links, etc. just because they don't come close to your political ideology. That's plain and simple intellectual dishonesty, quite something for someone boasting his objectivity and membership of "Wikipedians against censorship". Other readers are old enough, so they don't need your paternalistic guidance to what they should read or not. Let them decide for themselves. 62.194.104.78 22:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are refering to that Jihad watch site, it is a home page. We cannot include home pages per wikipedia policies.--Sefringle 22:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No homepages ? Well, we should remove the whole Jihad Watch article then, that's Robert Spencer's homepage or blog and he's far from an authority on Islam. He's never published anything accepted by the academic community and his scientific methods are garbage. The whole Jihad Watch thing is polemical, it has no value at all, except for Islamophobes: giving a generalized description of 1.3 billion Muslims - impossible as such - based on a selection of newspaper articles and quotes from Qur'an or Hadith without any context is just plain fraud. I'm sure if someone made a similar homepage about Jews you'd be as disgusted as I am: I personally condemn any hate mongering site. So, it's quite balanced that way: one blog by a non-expert replied to by a personal homepage. 62.194.104.78 07:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] extensive removals

re:[4] you should allow some time for people to source the material after tagging the article. please explain your lack of similar extensive removals on List of former Muslims. maybe you could help in finding references, as you did on the latter article. ITAQALLAH 22:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I'll wait one month. I will remove all unsourced material after one month from that article.--Sefringle 22:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
you may wish to address my other comments also. ITAQALLAH 22:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Which one?--Sefringle 22:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
the second two sentences of my above comment ^_^. ITAQALLAH 22:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Brainstar

Many thanks for it! Beit Or 08:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia policies and guidelines

It would depend on the essay. Who made it. How influential they were. Meaning, how much discussion and then positive support they could generate for it. I'm not really sure that there's a process. Things just kind of become accepted norms over time... until people start to ignore them. While WP:IAR isn't really taken at face value... it's kind of how things work. Policies only when necessary and even they can be ignored at times. So, in short, I don't think there's a set way but the only way you ever have a chance is if you get a lot of people all around Wikipedia to discuss (and agree) to it. gren グレン 01:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubai

Your new picture made me wonder, have you ever travelled to Dubai? It's an amazing city, one of my favorites. --Hojimachongtalk 04:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

no--Sefringle 04:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'unreferenced' taggings

You've recently tagged Persecution of Jews and Who is a Jew? with 'unreferenced' tags. Please use their talk pages to explain what sections you feel need citation. Thank you. ThuranX 06:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Sefringle 04:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, I've removed your 'unreferenced' tag from the Theistic Evolution article. Please be more specific and instead use the 'fact' tag after the particular claims that IYO lack citation and are doubtful.

-- Jmc 08:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ali

It (Imams appointed by God) is common Shia belief, from both scholars and "regular" Shias. Armyrifle 14:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

you still need a source to include it in wikipedia per WP:NOR--Sefringle 04:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I asked an admin to do something about him. I'm out of reverts in some places, it would be better if you cleaned up after that anon after the articles are semiprotecte and/or he's blocked. Arrow740 01:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional references for Alys Faiz

Thank you for creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alys Faiz. Some references have been added to the Alys Faiz. You may want to comment on the new references at the AfD discussion. --Eastmain 04:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the statistics

Hello Sefringle, During our dispute on the statistics section in Islam and antisemitism, have you found no source in the world that actually uses the word "antisemitism" with these statistics?

If there is not a single source that says these statistics represent antisemitism, then don't you think that you are misrepresenting the authors of the report who never used the word "antisemitism" to begin with?Bless sins 14:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Judiasm, which is what the source says, is antisemitism. It is a Synonym.--Sefringle 23:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and slavery revised lead proposal

Dear Sefringle, as an interested editor would you please offer your opinion at article 62 on the talk page re this proposal. DavidYork71 08:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism in Kazakhstan

Hi, You recently participted in an AFD on Terrorism in Kazakhstan. Your input on a proposed page move is desired. Regards, KazakhPol 23:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prisoners of war in Islam

Hello, Thanks for adding the quote from the Koran to this article. As you must be aware there are many editors who make the spurious argument that quotes from the Koran are not allowed because it is a primary source. I have explained repeatedly to them that according to Wiki policy primary sources are fine as long at the text is descriptive rather than being an editor's interpretation. The objective of disallowing primary sources seems to be the suppression of information of what the Koran actually says, to replace it with benign "secondary sources" from "scholars". Anyway, that is why I had given this link [5] that you removed. I agree it is redundant. However just wait and see, there will be objections to your text saying it is "original research". Hence even superfluous links are useful. Regards, NN 02:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as there is a secondary source as well, which there is is in this case, it isn't WP:OR.--Sefringle 02:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'unreferenced' and 'expand' tagging

You tagged the article Genetics with 'unreferenced' and 'expand'. Can you please explain what sections need expanding and what in the article needs references? Thank you. -Madeleine 02:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I tagged it with unreferenced because of the lack of sources. I tagged it with expand because at the time, the article was short and lacking in any detialled information.--Sefringle 02:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I count six footnotes and two general references; all but one of the footnotes existed at the time you tagged it. So there are and were some references. In addition, the article has only barely increased in size since you tagged it "expand" (50-100 words added out of 2100). Please be more detailed in your criticism, and could you please put it on the talk page? If you can't be more specific about your complaints, I'm going to remove the tags. -Madeleine 03:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
There are only six references. Most of the material is still unsourced. However I have removed the expand tag.--Sefringle 00:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Terrorism

Thank you for helping to keep an eye on this article, I just wanted to encourage you not to take User:MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus too seriously, he is clearly a troll - and one who likes to make blanket statements like "The Wikipedia community already decided X" when it's patently false. The article can use improvement, but every edit I've seen him make has further decreased the article's quality, and I hope you don't give up the watch soon. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 20:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Militant Islam afd

You commented that the article lacked content. However, please note this might have been the reason why it appeared to have no content. Thanks.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll make appropiate changes to my afd comment. --Sefringle 03:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL! Nice.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Primary source

You recently tagged this article as not adequately cite its references or sources. It seems to me to contain a lot of references and external sources for the material being discussed. Which aspects do you think could be improved by additional sources? Rjm at sleepers 07:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There are no footnotes. It is hard to tell that anything is sourced in the article.--Sefringle 03:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mohammad Badshah Qadri-ul-Chishti Yamani Raichuri

Please read my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Badshah Qadri-ul-Chishti Yamani Raichuri and see if you still believe that this article needs to be deleted. I have added the three electronic references to the article, although the last one is not very reliable. --Bejnar 04:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religious conversion and terrorism

Sefringle,

In one week I will put up an AfD on this article if no improvements are made. While the study it utilizes and the specific content it engages may be useful if merged into another entry or in an entry by another name (definitely not the generic "religious conversion and ..") in its current state it does nothing but promote one study. Please respond to my response on the entry page and please, by all means work to use the content in the most appropriate manner. Best.PelleSmith 16:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and slavery lead

Dear interested editor:
Please visit here: [6] in the next few days and give your vote and your proposals on how the lead may be reworked and reformed to meet GA criteria before next nomination.DavidYork71 04:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sun - Moon

Sefringle, the whole point of that website is to refute the idea of some Muslims that the Qur'anic usage of different words for the light of moon and the light of sun means that one of them reflects light and the other generates light. That's it. --Aminz 05:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naguibe Mahfouz

Is there a specific reason that you keep tagging the Naguib Mahfouz article for lack of sources? It lists its sources at the bottom of the page instead of using inline citations, though I am not aware of a guideline specifically for inline citations. Zerida 09:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:CITE#HOW--Sefringle 03:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neha

I just reverted your adding of the "Former Muslim" category because you need to source it in the text. I assume you did it because she married a Hindu but that doesn't mean she converted. It's not a big deal, I just saw it on my watchlist. Neither Shahrukh or his (Hindu) wife converted when they married so you should find a sources that says she converted. gren グレン 05:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Shahrukh's kids have Arabic names. Arrow740 05:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic slavery articles

Do you have any interest in forking some of the material from Arab slave trade to Islam and slavery? Arrow740 05:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It is probably a good idea.--Sefringle 05:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Richards

See this edit.[7] Please note that this has been a very contentious article, some parts of which have reached a consensus after a lot of debate, so please study and join in on the talk page for it. Tyrenius 05:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] representing sources accurately

Sefringle, i removed this passage which you inserted earlier because it not only misquoted Abu Usamah, but it also consisted of your misreading of the passage. you synthesised a link between his 9/11 comments and the libellous attribution that "lying is a part of the [sic] religion", implying to the reader that he was insincere about his earlier comments. that is also the impression you forwarded by use of the word claim, which is incorrect in this context. you also added a libellous category. for one who demands strict sourcing, the way you have been adding categories to various pages belies your apparent standards. please be more careful in future, especially with source representation. thank you. ITAQALLAH 08:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That source clearly states that he said "lying is part of the religion." He is clearly insincere about his earlier comments by his more recent ones. Anyone who praises Bin Laden does not have sympathy for the victims of 9-11. Abu Usamah clearly thinks 9-11 was both Islamic and justified, which can be seen by his radical preachings. So yes, he is a liar. I misinterprited nothing.--Sefringle 23:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
look at the source Sefringle before editing in a disruptive manner:

"Lying is part of their religion," Abu Usamah is heard telling his followers in the special report produced by the British news show "Dispatches" on Channel 4. "They do whatever they want to do. They are liars, they are terrorists themselves. They are lying, you can't believe them. "They are pathological liars," he rants.

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 13:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
furthermore, your questionable behaviour on Islam and children, undoing my edits despite me having consulted Levy and represented him properly, is highly inappropriate on your part. please stop this pattern of editing you have chosen to engage in. ITAQALLAH 13:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
the way you still continue to misrepresent the FOX source is rather astounding. have you even looked at the quote above? ITAQALLAH 07:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the source also, and I find that whereas Sefringle is accurate in his edits, the arguments of Itaqallah lack substance. Specifically whereas Sefringle has quoted specific material, Itaqallah makes generalized allegations not backed by actual material. Itaqallah, it would be better if you ceased making these allegations. NN 09:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
apart from siding with Sefringle through vague assertions, i see nothing which actually responds to the fact that Abu Usamah says "Lying is part of their religion. They do whatever they want to do. They are liars, they are terrorists themselves. They are lying, you can't believe them. They are pathological liars."[8] in the light of that, i cannot accept that your support for Sefringle is based upon an identical and fundamental misreading of a simple sentence construct, and so reading your 'summary' is rather entertaining. ITAQALLAH 12:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improper archiving

Due to the GFDL license on all wiki content, your "cut and paste" moves of archives 13 and 14 creates a mess when it comes edit histories. I have restored the archives as they were. Please leave them as such. Thank you. -- Avi 03:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please read the tag

Sefringle,

Please read the tag you deleted a little more carefully. The tag does not say that the entry lacks notability but that it lacks information about the notability of its subject matter. This is like removing the cite tag with the justification "there sure are sources for this stuff" but not providing any. Again the tag states that the entry does not provide information about why it is notable and not that "the entry isn't notable". Thanks and cheers.PelleSmith 13:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plese reconsider your vote to merge Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq

Hi Sefringle,

I've just put a lot of work into improving Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq so that the article is not now anything like what it was when you voted to merge. Please take another look and see what you think. I'm still not satisfied with the article, but it has roughly the proper scope and many more reliable sources. I think what I've done shows that there's too much material out there to merge this article with anything else. Significant gaps remain and some subjects should have footnotes from more sources, but I think the article is several steps toward what it should be. Best, Noroton 22:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bogus vandalism classification

Please be more careful before you describe other's edits as vandalism, as you did here [9]. Thanks. The Behnam 02:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "More sources" on Mathematics

Hello. Could you please explain on Talk:Mathematics why you slapped a {{more sources}} tag on mathematics? That's a long article with many sources, so it's not immediately clear what you;re referring to. I read on your user page that you often put similar tags on articles, which is fine I guess, though from the text on your user page you seem to put too much value on references. However, putting any clean-up tag on an article without explanation works only as a slap in the face for the editors working on the article (unless, of course, it's obvious what it's for). I reverted your edit pending further clarification. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please be careful with your edit summaries

Sefringle,

Religious conversion and terrorism lacks information about its notability. This is a fact. If it had such information you would show me where it was, quite clearly, and the whole issue would end. The tag is accurate and not "vandalism". Wrongly accusing an editor of "vandalism" is a pretty low way of trying to keep tags off of entries. The rewrite tag does not in any way "cover" this tag. When is the entry getting rewritten? You can't just throw out a rewrite tag and say ... "oh don't put up other tags because I promise to at some time fix all the problems with this entry". This is a group project Sefringle. Please at least explain why my edit is vandalism if you're going to throw around those kinds of accusations.PelleSmith 12:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move requests

Hi. I noticed the move requests you posted at WP:RM, and I just wanted to let you know that I moved the discussion you set up to Talk:Islamic science#Requested move, per the usual practice at Requested Moves. I also adjusted the links in the {{multimove}} templates on the other two pages. I'm just letting you know, so you won't be surprised to see your survey moved. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abdul Rahman (convert)

be careful when you move pages. The 'C' was supposed to be lowercase and it messes up article histories when you move them around too much. I fixed it but... just be careful. Same goes for the person who moved it to the weird name in the first place gren グレン 08:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it, I think. Thanks for pointing out my mistake :) gren グレン 10:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks--Sefringle 10:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Islam

On your profile I can see an interesting blend of contradictions. This just makes me wonder about your stance in accusing me and my introductory contribution of POV. Rokus01 09:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It still doesn't change the fact that your claim is unsourced.--Sefringle 10:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What part should be sourced? Of course it has been theorized by outstanding philosophers that modern criticism of Islam has modern, western and secular origins. This is basic knowledge. Rokus01 10:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Then give the name of those "philosophers" and find the book or text that mentions this. Otherwise it is WP:OR. See Wikipedia:Citing sources.--Sefringle 10:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fiqh

I'll try to work on that article. Cheers --Aminz 10:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antisemitism

I'm not keen on your last revert to this page. Please consider undoing it. 1 Maccabees is not a good source for the history of antisemitism for all sorts of reasons, not least that the Bible is a mishmash of oral history, poetry and fairy stories. I think it was fair enough that the new guy took it out, and reinserting it doesn't seem the right thing to do. Grace Note 08:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] whats OR about it??

Can u pls be very specific about the OR stuff, I only referred to the site's text, with links, would it be the case of quoting from the horse's mouth an OR issue with me??—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nazcas (talk • contribs).

Which article are you talking about?--Sefringle 03:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't mean to revert you so quickly

But as for the template you added to anti-Judaism, perhaps it is best to take it up on its talk page. -- Kendrick7talk 05:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abdul Rahman (convert) failed

Hi, I hope this massage doesn't bother you. I reviewed the article and found that it doesn't reached GA criteria. I wrote my reasons in the talk page. When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you think you can improve it during 7 days, I agree to put On Hold tag instead of Fail one. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Regarding notability of Football (soccer) players

Hi, seeing you have been involved in previous Afd debates on the subject I invite you to contribute to this discussion to clarify certain issues about football player notability. I think clearer guidelines are needed to avoid repeated inappropriate nominations for deletion and time consuming discussions. Cheers! StephP 20:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage

Hey, you should request S-protect, to stop anons from editing your userpage just a suggestion, thanks. Lakers 02:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks. I put in the request.--Sefringle 02:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem, all the best. Lakers 02:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Stop Removing Comments

The last comment was not a PA. Please stop. 216.99.60.104 01:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It most certianly was.
"It's also funny to see how hard anti-Muslims work to make sure that Muslims get unsettled. Says a lot about the Anti-Muslim person's psyche. Just a thought .." is a personal attack, since you are clearly refering to Arrow740 as "anti-muslim"--Sefringle 01:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic military jurisprudence

In your edit here, you are requesting that I give the user more time to find his/her sources.

The user, however, has been pushing his/her OR as early as 10 March [10].

Since you seem to have sound knowlege of wiki policies, I trust that you will either see to it that sources are provided, or remove the OR after a few days.Bless sins 18:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If it hasn't already been undone, I will undo it.--Sefringle 18:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Hi, You have left a message on that talk page, supporting a view with one or two words ("yeah right."). Would you just clearly read that talk page and clearly say why you think it is true? take care,--Pejman47 21:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg just explained it for me--Sefringle 21:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
in where? explained what? --Pejman47 21:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article reviews

Hi, sefringle—thanks for your contributions at WP:FAR. FAR has two parts: Featured article review and Featured article removal candidates, each about two weeks. We don't "vote" to keep or remove during the review stage, rather give suggestions for improvements needed. You can vote remove or keep if articles move to FARC (that is, if there is no improvement after the two week review period). Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Religious conversion and terrorism

An editor has nominated Religious conversion and terrorism, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious conversion and terrorism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. PelleSmith 12:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on a move

You had supported this certain move and ItaqAllah has opposed the move after I made it, you might be interested in the discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam/Islam_and_Controversy_task_force#Requested_move --Matt57 18:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/f/User_talk%7ESefringle_fa16.html"