User talk:CltFn/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: This user edits as CltFn (talk • contribs), Diglewop (talk • contribs)

And this is allowed per Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Multiple accounts --CltFn 23:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So long as they're not used to violate policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
That is right , and that is the parameters I intend to keep.--CltFn 23:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, CltFn/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  SlimVirgin (talk) 01:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

this irishtom guy is turning every article into an ad for islam

Yes that seems to be the case with a bunch of similar minded editors.--CltFn 23:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Daniel Pipes

Hi CltFn, I noticed your edits to the above. As you're new, you may not have realized that we don't insert lists of books into articles; we always have those at the end of the page. Also, if you're going to make a major change, as you did, you must describe it accurately in the edit summary, and not say "wikify etc," which sounds like a minor change; and on a page about a controversial figure (or really, any subject), major changes should be discussed on the talk page first, or they're likely to be reverted. I hope this helps some. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't do that again. See the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:10, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with your edits

I've taken a look through your contribs. It might help if you were to read Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Cite sources before you edit any further. We're not allowed to write up commercials for books, or pages that reflect only one point of view. We're also not allowed to remove NPOV tags that other editors insert, and we're expected to address editors' reasonable queries either on the article talk page, or on a user talk page. If you continue to add material that doesn't meet our policies, you may find yourself being blocked from editing for disruption or vandalism (as your repeated insertion of a list of books into articles might constitute), or being taken through the dispute resolution process. I hope you'll give this some consideration. If there's any way I can help you settle in, or anything further I can explain, please drop me a note on my talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 05:01, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • OK , I have read those references now . Incidentaly I am not writing commercial for books in book pages, as matter of fact , I even avoid inserting a description in my own words , I mainly quote the authors description of the book or some text from the book. They are mostly stubs which other editors will in time add to.
  • In some cases I have removed NPOV tags when it seemed innapropriate , but I have let other users reinsert them if they doggedly felt that it belonged there. Though i have not seen a wide enforcement of the NPOV tag rule , since I see many editors add and remove them like any other edit they may chose to make.
  • How would it follow that entering a list of the author's books into an article is vandalism?
  • Would you kindly undo the redirects of the book pages you did today, as I do not believe there is a wikipolicy against it , as a matter of fact this wiki cite sources comment on book pages would support this assertion.

--CltFn 22:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Template messages are your friends

e.g. {{Bookcover}} ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Book pages

Thanks for your note. There is nothing wrong with having pages about books, but you're not writing them in an NPOV way - in fact, as you have written them, they're commercials, which could have been written by the publishers, and we're not here to given free advertising. The problem with saying that other editors should do that work is that people may not want to, or have time to. Each editor has a responsibility to adhere to the policies. You're creating pages that only list the chapters, for example, and have enormous photographs of the book covers. If there weren't such political books, perhaps it wouldn't matter quite so much, but you've chosen to do this with books by Ann Coulter, Daniel Pipes, and others who criticize Islam, and it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to allow controversial points of view to take up a whole page without any balancing statements. If you want to rewrite those pages to include criticism, then I see no problem with them existing (though without the giant book covers and lists of chapters). As for inserting book lists into articles instead of introductions, I'm sure you can see how inappropriate this is, especially after you had been asked not to do it. The point is that we can't promote any person, or any set of ideas, and anything that smacks of promotion is against policy. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:21, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Slim , Please do not confuse a book stub which I have created as a start of a book page with the later content that will be develloped. It takes a lot of work to gather the material for book pages , and the skeleton you see is simply meant to be a stub. I go on the assumption that a book page will contain an intro , a thumbed book cover , which is not a giant book cover , general remarks, perhaps some quotes from the author about the book and a list of chapters is often useful. What is wrong with a list of chapters, or more pertinently what is the wikipolicy on a list of chapters?
  • In all fairness , I am not required to insert criticism on the book page , but simply to present the information in an NPOV fashion. Often this includes presenting the POV of the author in their own words and that is fair game. (Many wiki articles are strewn with quotes from authors including the Daniel Pipes article).
  • Are you going to undo the redirects of the book pages I created or are you going to leave it to me to do that?--CltFn 23:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you are required to insert criticism of conversial political books if you want them to be NPOV. Repeating the publishers' blurb and listing the chapter titles is not NPOV. If you want to expand the pages, please do so, rather than creating new stubs, each of which is POV. I've protected some of the redirects so you can't undo them, and if you undo any of the others, I'll protect them too. If you want to continue to write these pages in an NPOV way as regular articles and not book commercials, there's no problem, but I repeat: we're not here to give free advertising and Wikipedia must not be used to promote any person or set of ideas. If you want me to see your messages in future, you should post them to my talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I'll unprotect one of them so you can work on it, so let me know which one you'd like to start with. I doubt there's an explicit rule forbidding chapter lists, but it looks bad, it's commercial, and it's potentially POV depending on what the chapter titles are. The point is that the page should be encyclopedic. This isn't a book fair, and we're not acting on behalf of publishers. If you can write a truly encyclopedic article on these books (even if it's short), there will be no problem. It mustn't promote the book, and it mustn't unfairly disparage it. If it's a controversial book, and there has been reasonable criticism from credible sources, that should be included, or at least reference should be made to it, depending on the length of the other parts of the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:37, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Follow these closely and you'll be fine: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Cite your sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
This one The Sword of the Prophet, for example, is okay, because it contains some criticism, and doesn't contain too much publishers' blurb, or all the chapter titles. Let me know which one you want unlocked. I'll only unlock one to start with. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:01, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
CltFn, I've already spent a lot of time discussing this with you, but we're going round in circles. A good, encyclopedic article about a book does not consist of the publisher's blurb, a list of chapter titles, and a book cover. If you want me to unlock one so you can work on it, I will. If you don't, that's fine. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:36, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

One problem with just listing a TOC is that it really amounts to a copyright violation. You can't call it "derivative work" or "fair use" if you are doing nothing more than just presenting a list taken right out of the book. Applicable policies include those which address copyright issues, ad-spam, and the idea of a "data dump". Unless you add content, it's a problem. In addition, it is not sufficient, with regards to NPOV simply to report one side. These books are controvertial - only to present the author's view (even if you do so accurately) is not NPOV because it ignores the opposing view. In addition, you can always set up "temp" pages to work on these articles - that way you can take your time and create balanced NPOV article about these books. Guettarda 03:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • The "data dump" idea is a common interpretation of a section of the "What Wikipedia is not" article.
  • The idea that NPOV should provide both sides of controvertial topics is found in a section of the NPOV policy
  • As for what constitutes "fair use", I am not a lawyer, but there is a lot of material and discussion regarding the use of copyright material. As I understand it, in order to use copyright material you need to somehow add to it. You can quote from other works, but you can't simply reproduce a quote and call it "fair use" or a "derivative work". You need to add substantial "value". When you lift the TOC of a book you are reproducing copyright material. If it were incorporated into a broader article which was new material, then it would constitue "fair use" of this material. It's something of a "signal to noise" issue. The TOC of the book would be fine if each chapter listing were followed by an analysis of the chapter (an NPOV analysis, from referenced, reputable sources, including both pro- and con, since it's a highly controvertial topic) - then it would be fine. But without some further use of the material it runs the risk of being a copyvio.

Hope this helps to clarify things. Guettarda 04:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda's idea of you working on these pages in your user subspace is a good one. I'd be happy to transfer them for you. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:52, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3-hour block

Please take this time to think over your participation in this project. Consider the advice SlimVirgin has given you. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:10, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • And do not accuse admins of slander and biased edits, when they are explaining site policy to you. [1]

[edit] Your edits

There is no "vendetta" against you. What you're noticing is that several editors are having to follow your edits in order to correct your spelling and grammar mistakes, your unencyclopedic writing, and your anti-Islam bias. You claim you have consensus for your editing, but I assure you do not: read the comments on the VfD. You have no consensus whatsoever for including the chapter titles and these will continue to be deleted unless balanced by criticism of the work. If you start writing in accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research, you'll find that people will stop following you around. Regarding your use of sockpuppets — CltFn (talk • contribs), Diglewop (talk • contribs), and 81.15.233.3 (talk • contribs) — another way you could stop drawing attention to yourself is to choose one user account and stick to it. I warn you again that if you make any more personal attacks on Muslim editors (or anyone else), you may be blocked from editing. Also, please read Wikipedia:Three revert rule. SlimVirgin (talk) June 30, 2005 21:24 (UTC)

[edit] User accounts

Could you clarify, please, whether you're also editing as Urchid (talk • contribs)? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 18:22 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, in which you say you're not user:Urchid. In the interests of being absolutely clear about that, can I ask whether you made this edit? [2]
Also, I must warn you that if you continue to make personal attacks against other editors, such as "I know that you just cannot help yourself, lying through your teeth is your religion and you do nothing else but lie and that sadly is your incurable disease," you may be blocked for disruption and are likely to end up before the arbitration committee. SlimVirgin (talk) July 3, 2005 12:05 (UTC)

[edit] Poisoning the well

It is not Poisoning the well, because it relates directly to the nature of the book. Do you think that the "well" has been poisoned in the indrotuctory paragraph of Did Six Million Really Die??. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:02, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SIIEG

please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG --Zeno of Elea 08:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] al-Kindī

Please stop adding the ludicrous claim that al-Kindi was Christian; even the evidence that you provide makes it clear that you've made a mistake. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

In the face of almost 100% agreement that al-Kindi was unequivocally Muslim (aside from anything else, his writings demonstrate it), I don't see any ground for doubt. The only evidence the other way is the text of dubious provenance to which you linked, which itself states that the author isn't the famous philosopher al-Kindi. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nomani

We should use the name she writes under, but if anyone checks under the other name, they'll find her, because it's a redirect. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


I would assume that they'd be allowed to be pasted as long as they were cited that they were hers. When you said you... did you want me to do it? or... you plural? In any case, I'm not sure if it matters being a click away or on that page. gren グレン 16:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)