User talk:Historianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello Historianism! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

[edit] Speedy deletion of Persia, The Cradle of Infidels

A tag has been placed on Persia, The Cradle of Infidels, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

books that do not yet exist rarely meet notability requirements. Please wait until you can cite some reviews before creating an article like this

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

________________________

It does exist already, I just edited it & provided a link with description.

Did you check the ISBN? Of course it was published on June 2006.

The article itself stated the book was "forthcoming" which means not existing yet, also the article didn't list any reviews. Articles must meet the policies of WP:N and other policies, and most books don't qualify as notable enough until after there has been quite a buzz. You are welcome to attempt to recreate the article if you can make assertions of notability, such as reviews by multiple notable sources. If you want to create a test article, you can create your own user sandbox to fiddle with a test article without risk of deletion. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

On his site http://www.persiathecradleofinfidels.com/ he even has a link to Amazon to 'buy' it, I hesitated to quote the Amazon link for "marketing questions". So Why was it deleted?

The American Enterprise Institute has published a formal review on this book! Here is the link to the review: http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.26105/pub_detail.asp

This book is now being internationally recognized. I believe it should not have been deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eros 77 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Convert or Die

Please stop removing the redirect. It is not necessary to have multiple articles for the same topic. Let the redirect remain and take people to the already existing Convert or die article. Please be mindful of the WP:3RR rules and avoid repeatedly undoing the edits of others. janejellyroll 02:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. There is nothing but ONE article for 'Convert or Die', I am not interested in "multiple" articles that are the same.

Two articles have been created--Convert or Die and Convert or die. Another editor established a redirect so that those searching for Convert or Die would be redirected to Convert or die because it is pointless to have two different articles on the same subject. You reverted this change. I reestablished it (because again, it is pointless to have multiple articles on the same topic) and you have twice reverted it. Please stop reverting. I will now reestablish the redirect again. Rest assured that this will not have an impact on Convert or die--in fact, it will consolidate the audience for the articles. janejellyroll 02:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that 'convert or die' was deleted somehow or accidently, I didn't realize that Convert or Die & Convert or die' would make it seperated two pages!Historianism

No problem. Wikipedia can be very picky about capitalization! janejellyroll 02:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that, Thanks for understanding, I just joined, in fact, I myself (in the chatting-generation) didn't even realize that I changed the capiltalization.Historianism

I originally declined the request for speedy deletion as this was clearly not an attack page. However, on further research of the articles content, most if not all of it was taken from other sources directly. Material with a copyright cannot be copy and pasted into Wikipedia in order to create an article. If you can provide original content backed up by sources, the article can be rewritten. Please do not simply copy/paste other work into Wikipedia. auburnpilot talk 04:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought that it's best to 'copy & paste' if I provide the original author linked... Well, I guess I will have to ReWrite it.Historianism

I have deleted Muhammad Ikram for the same reason. If you can rewrite the article in your own words, backed up by reliable sources, you are more than welcome to recreate the article. Thanks for your understanding. auburnpilot talk 04:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your pacience... I edited 'Convert or die', it came out very short, but in 'my own words' backed by the sources. Is that (form) OK?Historianism

[edit] Three-revert rule warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Convert or die. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 07:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I created an entirely NEW page, which yesterday's aguments do not apply (IMHO), in deleting it so FAST... How can one see the difference?

The ones arguing for redirect or even rushing to delete... did not see my edited vesion, which is 1) Not just an interview, 2) facts presented, 3) encylopedic terminology. 4) It is not about "race". 5) A rational person, a moderate Muslim would NOT regard exposing radicals as an "attack on all Islam".

Then take it to deletion review, and ask for the decision to be reexamined in light of the new article. Please do not just recreate articles on a subject which many editors decided could not be presented in an NPOV manner, and came to a clear consensus on. A delete opinion in AFD does not mean "I do not like this article as it is now", it means "I do not believe we should have an article on this subject at all." Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 07:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Seraphimblade, Do I post on that page ('of deletion review') even without noticing anything on OUR specific case (not) yet posted there? I other words, Do I start a new post about this whole thing. PS I just joined yesterday, and many rules are new to me.

Just follow the steps listed here, it'll take you right through the filing. If you need help listing it, let me know. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 07:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, Now/where else, How do I notify to admin. that I have a message regarding "deletion", there?


Afraid you did it a bit wrong-the templates for step 3 and 4 don't go on the DRV page, only the following template: {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=PAGE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ from step 1 goes on the DRV page. The other ones are to notify the admin who closed the AfD, and to put on the page that is under question, respectively. No trouble, just try it again, we were all new once. :) Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 08:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I think I fixed it? Thanks again. BTW the time one signs his/her editing portion, is in what Zone?

[edit] Hold It Right there

  • You look as if you havent read much about being on wikipedia!
  • Read -Wikipedia:Edit war before you touch another article for any reason.
  • You are heading to being blocked for a while, or something worse.

And maybe read the following - whether you are right or wrong...

Welcome!

Hello, Historianism, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  specially about what WP:NOT, WP:Civility, WP:Wikiquette - take a deep breath and forget about Islam and try to get your handle on being a member of the Wikipedia community. Try that first SatuSuro 06:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Follow up

  • Thanks for your great help.Historianism
    • That's fine - got to go through some things here yet...
  • Since I have been alerted to the term "edit war" I am NOT modifying any disputed on talk pages (of pages of "mine").Historianism
    • Edit war is when you place an item in an artilce, and someone comes along and removes it - then you put it back - and so on - and it keeps on going - the edit history of at least one article shows up of where you have returned at least 4 times to replace an item that has been removed. WP:3RR is in place to prevent that happening in less than 24 hours - disruptive editors used to get around that by coming back the next day- so not got on 3RR - but disruptive editing. You are indeed (as well as the person who keeps putting the item back) eligble for warnings re discruptive editing - but as you are a newcomer - we do have a rule WP:Dont bite the newcomers - but that dosnt let you off the hook - as you have warnings here on your talk page regarding the various rules - as a good member of the community - you read them - and find that some things are not acceptable on wikipedia - ok ?! SatuSuro 07:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 1) Shall I be less "russhy" in re-editing what that IP editor keeps playing with?. Historianism
    • Ok, reversion is a tricky one. Your should follow the procedure - if someone reverts with no comment - that is not following wikipedia practice (If you read the essay I have linked - about edit wars - explanation about why some information is deleted or moved in some way - needs to be done so with proper summaries in the edit summary - and some effort to provide good reasoning on the talk page as well. When opening conversations regarding edit differences with another editor - there sgould be assumptions of {[WP:Civility]], WP:Wikiquette, and an assumption of WP:Good faith. Issues in talk pages - are always guided by 'talk page headers' - they always remind editors how to behave.

In the event of difference over controversial issues - you really should go to someone like the editors who have been speaking with you and asking for help - how do i do this - what should I do? - by doing that the editor see you have good faith - and you are less likely to invoke issues that arise from silent edit wars. When in doubt - got another user who you have had something to with you - or who has offered advice - and ask them to spell it out.

(like waiting a day or two? too bad I got a taste of 'rushness' the first ever little action on Wiki, with some editor's speedy "rage"..Historianism

  • I have already suggested that you should read first - either the first 'welcome' box up the top from mermaid, or the simplified one i got below - take time, slow down - read up .
  • If you find some interest in the claims of opponents of Islam, I would suggest that you need to understand what Wikipedia is not - at WP:NOT - the same can be said for almost any institution in the world - there are always things that they do wrong - nothing is perfect. So if you choose to make claims for a position on any subect - you should be prepared to see that Wikipedia is aiming for WP:NPOV - and that to create articles we need balance and consensus for the encyclopedia to function in the range of its claims of NPOV. There are plenty of blogs and areas elsewhere on the internet that would be less likely to check you if you really want to explore your attitude towards Islam - here if you get into controversial areas - you need to expect, rage (and they could equally translate your response as the same .. it works both ways). Much better to explore less conentious areas - and go for other subjects that do not offend anyone, then you will have a far more productive start. SatuSuro 08:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I see that you keep saying "islam", There is a world of difference between criticizing radical Islam (my content - "disputed") & criticizing Islam (like describing who/What Muhammad was; good or bad, or if the Quran is bad as a whole, or if entire Islam is negative, etc.). There is (some of) a global consensus (no matter "where" one comes from) in opposing RADICAL Islam, which I was relying on. Historianism 00:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I see you are continuing to edit in the area - and you have bolded your comment here - how do you make your distinction? - and do you have a good ref for global consensus thats a long bow you are drawing there SatuSuro 04:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • rushing to delete for some obscure baseless "reasoning", I really got the impression that it has to do much with speed.)
    • people take notice - they notice you cannot sign your name in posts - you couldnt do various things - you started articles which are contentious, controversial, and offensive to many - just remember - wherever you 'come from' there are a lot more people who do not agree with you. Which is an argument - if you are newcomer - some can see that - but wikipedia has a policy of dont bite the newcomers - so you need to try a subject that is not biting others! Then you are more likely to gain some level of good faith from others. No good faith - and you might as well go find a space invader game somewhere - it least it donst bite back! SatuSuro 08:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


2) If you notice, I added some informative quality items in some of my restating moves as well, so it's more than just "empty fighting

    • You choose to go into a provocative area of knowledge and claim to have possesion of 'informative quality items' ? pull another one - it dosnt matter if you have the crown jewels, if you go into controversial areas you must expect to find other editors - anonymous or otherwise - who will take issue with your stance - and your insistence on repeatedly re-instating information. You have to learn the process where by if you see a need to revert another, or another reverts you - rather than go into WP3:RR territory - you stope where you are, go the the talk page- state your case - walk away from it (not hit another revert) - and if it comes back again - go through the correct process of resolving differences.

3) My interest in being a decent member is not merely connected to 'warning of blocking', but my sincere goal of authentically being as such: a 'decent member'.

    • Well you might as well go home now. You have started in a problematic and controversial area - you have to wear that. You have come close to - and may well be blocked for being a disruptive editor. If you want to be a decent member - and have a sincere and authentic goal - then you are in the wrong territory - creating material in that area is contentious, divisive and controversial. You may have some personal mission there - but the same phenomenon occurs under many guises all around the world with different labels. If you look at medieval crusading christians in Jerusalem - they always slaughtered, the muslims a lot less. Your user name suggests an interest in history, perhaps - you might realise your current focus is a mere pimple on the bottom of history in its fullest sensse - perhaps you should stand back from it and think about it from a wider and longer perspective.

4) Thanks again! 5) Any comment on my editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinglish#acceptance & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singlish#acceptance ? could I improve those in terms of Wiki terminology? Historianism 08:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I am still learning as we speak...
    • Are you really sure that you are? - you have gone back to what you have been doing, it would be good to see where you might have an idea of beyond your current enthusiasm
  • I shall be a more complex member with wider issues, which I am naturally not just (current global news influenced by phenomenon) RADICAL (Islam) per se.
    • The proof is in the pudding, you are showing signs that you want to flog your horse first, and the keenness to prove somebody else right or wrong usually comes back... dont say I didnt warn you
  • What if a non member edits any of my humble little 'contribution' without any reason? Historianism 07:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
    • For a start there is nothing humble, or little contribution - about your level of any of your editing so far - your level of persistence and choice of topics has caught the eyes of a number of editors
    • if you look very carefully when you are editing at the bottom of the page: -

Please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. - its part of the contract - you put a word in - dont expect to find it there tommorrow :) SatuSuro 04:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is an encylopedia

And the following is not an encylopedia level contribution - why? WP:NOT - you are making an almost incoherent list or litany - and not even in readable sentences. WP:MOS issues would leave some editors to simply delete on that basis alone. If I have time in the next day or two I will return and pull this apart bit by bit - as it is not standard level contribution to this encyclopedia. Also it does not gell with your comments about your understanding of the issue above.

3 Current forced conversion by Islam

  • 'Convert or die!' the ultimatum call/order by Islamic extremists be it on a general level: [4] Video: Al Qaeda tells U.S. to convert or die.
  • Nor is it limited to Iraq,Israel, it effects all of the middle east.[5].
  • Or on a specific ethnic or religious group like the Mandaeans in Iraq that face exitintion & genocide & are basically given the choice by both, Sunni & Shia Muslims to: 'Convert or die!'. [6]
  • Or on an individual level, one of the more famous examples are the two journalists Centanni & Wiig kidnapped by Islamic Palestinians' Holy Jihad Brigades & were forced to convert to Islam at gun point.[7] [8] NPR asks if a Forced Conversion to Islam is "Valid" [9]. J. Glazov writes that it is embedded within Islam [10]
  • The outrage in Pakistan over death of a Catholic boy Javed Anjum forced to convert to Islam at the hands of torturous abductors [11]
  • In indonesia, leaders are troubled by the accounts of forced conversion To Islam [12]
  • In 2001 Christian villagers in Moluccas received an ultimatum to convert to Islam or face being killed. 13
  • On 22nd February 2007, British Met Police chief Sir Ian Blair has revealed that the police is working with universities to clamp down on "aggressive conversions" during which girls are beaten up and forced to abandon university courses is protecting vulnerable teenage girls who are forced to convert to Islam by Extremist Muslims. [14]

---


I would suggest once again that you need to go back to the welcome - go into the WP:MOS - and if you are a native speaker of english - then you need to brush up on your skills of expression - capitalisation, sentencce construction, and indeed the use of generalisations. SatuSuro 05:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Please elaborate (specifics helps) what you mean by "generalisations" or by "indeed generalisations"?

Sure I need to improve on writing skills, no argument here, However, The division of 'Convert or die' into (victims as:) 1) general, 2) groups & 3) individual/s, was not a coherent list? in my humble opinion, and indeed as the sources state, they are all "authentic" 'convert or die' cases. Historianism 16:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Inquisition

[edit] Speedy deletion of Islamic Inquisition

A tag has been placed on Islamic Inquisition, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

sounds like an interview? What is this?
It is indeed a published interview by FrontPage magazine in the link provided, I quoted only some excerpts of course.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not just an interview, I have many links there of CURRENT references to the fact or/and term: 'Islamic Inquisition' by respected sources. The facts of forced conversion by Islamists militants upon non Muslims is real, past & present. As the Spanish Inquisition was a mass movement of 'forced conversion' including torture, so are the facts presented in the page, regard Al Qaeda & the Palestinian Jihadi group forcing journalists Centanni & Wiig to convert as such. Historianism

You mentioned on the AfD that this page was never deleted to your knowledge. Please see the deletion log link: [1]. Thanks - Ozzykhan 14:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ozzykhan, Why doesn't it show in the 'history' of the page (where I took my assumption from)? or is it that 'deleted' pages do not show in history of a page? (asking as a relative newcomer...) Historianism 06:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daily Mail

Hi Historianism. Thanks very much for your kind comments. The Daily Mail is what we call in England a tabloid newspaper, i.e. its orientation is popular rather than serious. Its politics are firmly to the right and it is considered non-mainstream on issues related to ethnic minorities. Some people quote the fact that the paper supported Hitler in the 1930s but of course it has been under several editorships since then. The serious papers in the UK, which are always reliable sources in WP terms, are The Times (centre right), the Daily Telegraph (right), The Independent (centre), The Guardian (centre left) and the Financial Times (centre). In this particular case the Daily Mail's reporting was obviously shoddy. It said that Sir Ian Blair had "revealed" the existence of forced conversions, yet it did not cite any of his actual words, and the statement the police eventually issued did not bear out the Mail's version at all. Itsmejudith 21:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Judith, Thanks for your reply, IMHO: The Guardian is far lefty biased, The Independent as "center"? all I see is Jihadists or those apologizing for Jihadists quoting 'The Independemt' in demonizing US, Israel on forums, I heard much too humuor about the "title" that never suit them. As to the Daily Mail being connected to Hitler, I am pretty sure that most anti - daily mail do not include it in their political agenda. As to them being a tabloid-paper, I can not disagree with that, in many cases. Historianism 10:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)