From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome To This Forum

Moohey! Greatings Fellow Earthlings!

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

[edit] Wiki Ideas

[edit] Brief Proposal for new Wiki project for Peer Review Original work

Current Wiki projects do not allow original works, which is a great and smart idea. What good is an Encyclopædia if it is full of fiction ... makes the whole thing irrelevant. Now, people might attempt to submit their own stuff in the past there … because there could be a need for a forum for non-point of view research requiring educated, non-point of view critiquing (both positive and negative). Wiki does have a good community of a wide variety of individuals … a very small portion might not mind being a peer to critique new works (research papers and such).

I am not talking about opinion blogs or anything like that. There is much of that out there already. I am talking about stuff that is more than just some bloke’s rant of the day. I am talking about research papers and ideas … that contain references for some of the source data they based their research on (total fiction or opinions with no references to any points on their work would be deleted).

Just a crazy idea … might get no feedback … but something to think about if yee is insane like me.  ;-) Nonprof. Frinkus 18:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critiques

They are always welcome. Truth is learned through mistakes and earned through constant vigilance.

[edit] Your edit to Islam

The information you added to Islam is intersting, and I encourage you to add it, reworded to the page. However, as it stands, it is a copyright infringement, and cannot be placed on Wikipedia. Thank you. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, if a reference is sited, it is not copy infringement in my country. I will gladly word it (as long as people will not accuse it of POV ... since that is what I found in the source Encyclopedia. Nonprof. Frinkus 20:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the copyright issue (which can be debated) the important thing is that we have Criticism of Islam, History of Islam and Dhimmi where that can be inserted w/o problems. I also believe that it is already mentioned in both in depth. The thing is that the main article should focus on generalities while linking to everything related to it.

You have to note also that the material is already discussed in the article (Islam#Islam and other religions and Islam#History)! So the question is what's the need for a duplication of the material?-- Szvest 21:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

It is not really a duplication, since there seems to be active effort to ensure related details are hidden separate areas in less clear text. And I have yet to see "everything" I have mentioned here ... it is not like this is all superfolous information. And related information should be grouped together. It is not like this section is large and contains filler.

it is not copy infringement in my country... - it is a copyright enfringement, unless it is a very brief quote, usually used for the purpose of quotes. However, as the text stood, it was an entire paragraph, that, in your words, was "quoted word for word". That's why wikipedia often only quotes from Encyclopedia Brittanica 1911 version, because anything after that is illegal. I will add the usual warning template below so you can see the wording. Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the [[{{{1}}}]] article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing!-Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you very much ... I have already re-worded it myself. That version would be very old ... but it seems everyone is very picky on details.

[edit] Blocked for infraction of 3 revert rule

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

-- Szvest 21:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why am I blocked? The information was removed without discussion on it (as per Wikipedia policy) and I had valid points for leaving it in. Why am I being descriminated against?

Is this not vandalism against my contribution ... anyone know where I can get help? Nonprof. Frinkus 21:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry for the block but that's policy Frinkus. You did revert other contributors more than 3 times in less than 24h. You can come back after the block expires. Please, have some time to read about the basic policies of Wikipedia before you concentrate on editing. I know you are a new user and i say welcome and normally newcomers are treated w/ courtesy (see WP:BITE). After having read some of the basic policies i am sure you'd find yourself at ease. -- Szvest 22:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

I believe this was an unwarranted removal, which the 3 block rule was not to apply (please see policy). Hopefully people will discuss what they dislike before deletions. Either way ... I will heed this time and happily see if my changes are still warranted tomorrow. Peace Nonprof. Frinkus 22:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes Frinkus. I read the policy and read the exceptions to the rule (see Exceptions). Actually, people are or have to discuss new entries before deletion but this doesn't give anyone the right to revert more than 3 reverts w/in 24h. -- Szvest 22:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

But it is acceptable, provided they are combating vandalism. I originally thought removal sans explanation was just that.

[edit] Your controversial Islam entry.

If you feel that information is missing from the article then you need to productively add such information, and not just copy and paste most of an entire passage from somewhere else--wherever that may be (the afore mentioned encyclopedia or http://www.crystalinks.com/islamic.html which might be another copy of the same). Integrate the new information and get rid of the duplicate information. Also try to stay away from weasel words, POV additions in brackets, and poor formatting. Clearly, as you've been told the copy and paste thing is a no-no, but there is no reason why you can't try to actually edit the entry on your own. Of course be prepared to discuss your edits, especially when alot of editors have issues with them. If you are in fact acting in good faith then I'm sure you will come back to the page and edit responsibly after your 3RR ban is over. Good luck.PelleSmith 22:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing I do not understand, is how can a simple piece of information within a popular encyclopedia be controversial? I never thought facts or good information could be controversial? I never took this information from such a "www.crystalinks.com" site (I've never even been there). How can people make unsubstantiated accusations? I did not do a copy and paste thing at all (I even reworded it when I was told quotes were not allowed). I have no problem with discussing changes ... that is what discussion section is for. I thought people would naturally discuss thing before removing them ... which I believe was in the rules too. I do intend on clearly making the appropriate edits to combine with information there (the information there has some data missing, and appeared to weasel from facts ... I wonder where I can get this list of words to avoid?)

You shouldn't use weasel words in a wikipedia entry (although you will find them in many publications and in print encyclopedias like the one you quoted). You can read about weasel words by clicking on the link. Good luck.PelleSmith 19:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you for pointing out the weasel words spot ... great to know. I do have one slight concern, weasel statements are bad because they add POV, however, negationist statements are equally as bad for they add POV in the opposite direction. I think the NPOV guide sections in wikipedia need to be enhanced, as it is mentioned in the talk pages there ... that there is more than one way to stick in POV ... and purity comes with balance (moderation a virtue, extremes are not). Nonprof. Frinkus 07:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So ... if someone vandalizes a page (this user who blocked me was blocked several times himself today) ... what recoarse does a person have to restore their portions without incurring this unreasonable in this case 3 strikes rule? Thank-you very much. Nonprof. Frinkus 22:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR rule does not include vandalism. If an article is vandalized, it may be reverted more than three times. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you so much for the information. I will wait the 24 hours and put in the information again, just mix it in better with the existing material. Cooler heads prevail, and I am here forever (ahhh). It was general material I was putting in that summerized this topic (others thought differently above). I always thought the main page should summarize all important points (which this one seems lacking, especially with the use of not so basic words to cloak meaning to majority). Nonprof. Frinkus 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandals are treated differently Frinkus. It depends on the degree and the frequency of vandalism. Usually a vandal is warned 3 to 4 times before being blocked. We start w/ a 24h block if it is the frist time. 3RR, as Pat explains above is treated differently and it is not considered vandalism when it concerns edit warring as in your case. The rule is a 24h block as a cooling-off period. Just don't worry as almost every new user experiences this situation. It is just about time. Please also try to discuss them at the article talk page so your edits would seek support or opposition. -- Szvest 22:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

So it is not vandalism if there is any kind of edit warning (regardless of the validity of the warning)? Yes ... before I change anything here regarding this current issue next time (if I still feel the change is warranted based on other edits between then) ... I will definately first bring it up to discussion ... and see the feedback first.

[edit] To sign your comments

Hi there. To sign your comment try four of tilda signs that is ~~~~. ابراهيم 20:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you, I have been doing that ... but because I do not edit my material exclusively through my browser (to help with atrocious spelling that plagues my quick typing. I also did not realize people preferred it every time, but that makes sense given the massive amounts of adjustments made by different individuals, and the need to keep track to understand the ongoing conversation. I find these discussions hopeful and quite constructive. I know better not to edit anything myself on important pages like this without having brought all edits up in discussion first, and discuss.  :-) Nonprof. Frinkus 20:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are doing it 3 times not four time because your signature are not click-able. It is good to sign so that people can better understand you as individual. --- ابراهيم 12:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Right on … thank-you, I will keep better check of what gets typed at the end.  :-) Nonprof. Frinkus 19:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: I have confirmed I am using 4 (I use the shortcut with special character below the edit area), but my signature just happens to be not a link due to some preference somewhere. Nonprof. Frinkus 20:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstars

Not sure, I figure this is all instructions there is to it Wikipedia:Barnstars --Stor stark7 ^Talk 22:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you very much. Turns out, I could do it myself all along sans committee. Possibly because I come from a country where the prevalent style is meek and shyness … I naturally assume against being proactive. I guess I just like to make sure beforehand. Nonprof. Frinkus 03:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for my first barstar :-) --Stor stark7 ^Talk 19:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rhetorical Question

Is there a Wikipedia policy that clearly states with groups are declared holds the official “take” on any given piece of subject matter? If there is, what does it take to be added to this list?

The reason I ask, is because I have asked this question recently, but no one cares to respond on something that is extremely important when it comes to biases and such. For example, many scientific disciplines are involved when it comes to outer-space (anything beyond our planet Earth) … but only one organization … the “International Astronomical Union” that has a say on whether Pluto is a “Planet” or newly invented “Dwarf planet” (even going so far as ruling that these two words are to be treated as a single English word, and not an adjective in front of a noun). Reality is not determined by popularity contest, and with less than 5% of the IAU voting on this issue, seems suspect that only one body controls the official “take” here.

[edit] Talk:Muhammad/Mediation

Just to notify that mediation has renewed at the Muhammad article, after a delay due to Ars Scriptor's leaving, in case you still wanted to participate. I'll be the mediator, but I may call in help from someone more experienced later. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 13:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Merci Nonprof. Frinkus 20:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a question for you in regards to your "if I could do anything...". You would "would make darn certain that image was historical and relevant" but you would only want to do it with the face uncovered? Take this proposition: the most historically important tradition of drawing Muhammad is with his face covered. Would you rather use a picture with his face uncovered even if such images were less historically representative? Now, if you don't accept the proposition that's another argument... but I want your answer assuming you accept it.

Also, would you agree that since images of Muhammad are almost exclusively shown in texts that the image on this page should be from the page of a text so that readers will not assume that they are hung on walls like Christian tradition does? gren グレン 21:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am speaking generally, but one of the most primary points of a human image is to show the face, n'est pas? Genetically Homo sapiens are designed to recognize individuals by their face. So, if I look up an article on Greek author Homer, or French author Voltaire, it would probably show a picture revealing the individuals face. Covering the face defeats the biggest purpose. Now, if someone has a better sourced image on a subject, I suppose we go with the better sourced item, purely on sourcing, and not due to sensibilities. Now, there could be an argument that not showing the face could defeat the effect of the image (for recognition purposes, unless we are speaking about a person who actually possess no face), so that could have an end result of being less effective than an image with a face, so the better faced image be more important to the article. Gee, that gets complex.

As for reader assumption, the text of the article should clearly explain how Islamic individuals use his image accurate. One should not worry about assumption based on looking purely at a picture (as long as the image met noted Encyclopædic standards). Of course, I am not a Christian, but I do know they seem to not show images of "God", only representatives there of (Jesus Christ being God's representative on Earth according to Christian mythology). Nonprof. Frinkus 05:46, 7 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]

Nonprof., also note Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion (untainted).Proabivouac 00:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)