User talk:Mukadderat/Talk archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Hi

Thank you for the civil message. Hopefully, the issue is resolved now. Peace. --Striver - talk 08:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making the edit to our page. We really appreciate it!--Cougar11 18:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Namus

I added a link on the Namus talk page to some new material that may want to incorporate and footnote into the article. -- Jreferee 19:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, namus, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On January 3, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article namus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 03:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Islam and women

Hi! The category you made needs to be consistent with other cats and its own content. Out of pages about Persian women, only one article namely Persian women's movement may belong to this category, as Islamic law is in power during last three decades and Persian women (muslims, jewish, christian, atheists ...) are all struggling with Islamic laws. Other articles can not be categorized under Islam as Persian culture is more close to Zoroastrianism than to Islam. Please discuss your ideas with wikipedians working on Iranian pages before editing them in future. Categorizing people based on religion is not acceptable unless the person is a cleric or religion is the dominant feature of his/her identity. See categories for deletion:[1] Fooladin 21:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "Allah is patient." But it seems you are not! The definition of a category must be based on consensus. Apparently you think "nothing can be done without your approval." You said "This category is about women interacting with Islam." Well the answer is simple. This is your personal definition. Ofcourse western societies (including women!) are also struggling with Islam. Islamic society either means ummah (the accurate meaning) or arab society (as arab culture and islamic culture are melted in eachother). The article on "Iranian women" is not about women of modern Iran. Modern Iranian women (19th century and 20th century) is the subject of "Persian women's movement". Any material in wikipedia needs to be based on consensus. I have seen that you refuse to categorize pages about European women and American women under "Category:Christianity and women". Are you saying women in Europe did not interact with christianity? Why should we have always a double standard? I will never be tired of discussion. and I try to assume good faith. Fooladin 09:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
OK. You convinced me. You convinced me that you are seriously committed to ignore other people's opinion and are going to use all kinds of crooked logic and insinuations. If you are going to pull this "double standard" trick, why don't you go and create category:Iranian men? Mukadderat 08:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Answer to your question: "Are you saying Iran is not Islamic country?" Viewing Iran as a Islamic country is the Iran's government's policy which has been critisized widely during last three decades. The word ummah was used by Ayatollah Khomeini for the first time in Iran and was a part of his policy. Yes, Iran is NOT an Islamic country (a meaningless term), Iran has an Islamic government. Any ways, It is a contemporary issue and contemporary Iranian women is the subject of "Persian women's movement" article. "Iranian women" article is about Persian culture and how women were depicted in miniatures, poetry, literature in ancient times. How traditional Persian dress look like etc. It means the article tries to define Persian women in contrast to women in other cultures including Islamic culture. For example You see pictures of women with no Islamic dress, drinking wine etc. This is the dominant picture of women in Persian miniatures. I am not saying this culture is good or bad. I am not saying muslim women and Islamic culture is good or bad either. I hope it is now clear. Fooladin 09:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Not clear. there are women. There is a dominant religion. It is even more interesting to see that "islamic" dress is not an obligatory attribute of Islam, despite Western attempts to draw this picture of "women in black" over all Islamic world. By refusing my classification you are effectively supporting the western stereotype that Islamic world is all harems, stoning of women, forced marriages, jihad, paranja/hijab/chachvan, ritual killings (while Christian World is all peace and democracy and women rights) What?... There is no Christian World in wikipedia???? Mukadderat 17:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Goy

Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 30 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rhymed prose, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 11:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Crazy Commies

I noticed that you (might or might not) have the article Economy of the Soviet Union in your watchlist. This article is need of serious work but it's a big task. If you are so interested I'd love your help. NeoFreak 22:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No. I just joined "vandalism patrol". Unfortunately I have absolutely nothing to say about Soviet Union. Judging from the very sparse talk in the talk page, I see that no one is really interested in beating the dead horse. Mukadderat 23:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No worries. I'm going to beat that dead horse to death (again) when I find the time. Right now I'm embroiled in a disaster with the NeoPagan wikiproject so I'll just hope that I have the time to get around to it. I've also raised some some concerns about the deltion project after Elara left. I'm pretty sure you're a member but I might be wrong. Hit me up about that when you get a chance. NeoFreak 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not an "official and self-aware deletionist", but I do sometimes spend some time on voting for deletion (and mostly for deletion; I maintain that if something is worth keeping, someone will write a good article sooner or later, so no reasn to "defend" them in AfD, so in a way yes, I am a "deletionist", but not a "proactive" one). Mukadderat 23:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't want you to think that I'm asking for support, the creation of the new deltionist cabal is a bit away :). Don't worry about upadating my talk page, I'll just watchlist yours. you and I seem to have alot of congruent opinions on Wikipedia, I'll just let that run its course. NeoFreak 00:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

rhymed prose

Hey Mukadderat, I responded again on the dicussion of Rhymed prose. Cheers.--Ioshus(talk) 03:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

delete imag

i want it deleted, ive tried many different avenues to have it deleted and none have worked

Iranian Women

moved to Talk:Iranian women#Image gallery. Mukadderat 22:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Previous AfD vote

Hi. You previously voted in an AfD for Tim Bowles. Would you please pop over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Bowles (3rd nomination) and give us your input again? Thanks. --Justanother 20:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Prothesis

Hello,

I'm trying to make the articles on sound changes/rhetorical devices more precise, and also to give them a common format. The section on prothesis as it is now is I think a loosely structured laundry list. I want to categorize the different types of prothesis according to the different senses of the word, which may refer either to 1. a historical sound change, or 2. a grammatical rule. That's how I've organized other articles on related topics. I don't see that any important information was lost in the change. If there is something specific that you think was deleted, how about we change the article to my new format, and you add in that information in the appropriate place? All your reverts have certainly removed at least 1 bit of specific information (the IPA pronunciation and the corrected etymology).--Gheuf 19:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Green Andy

Dear Sir,

I created the page Green Andy. The page is fully notable with multiple sources (if you want more please ask), and it is about an Existing person. If you wish, I can give you his e-mail for contact to him personally. Lets settle this civily, not by deleteng and leaving everyone with hurt feelings.

--Stealthrabbit127:: 21:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Muhajir

-Abi bu makalenin yazarı sensin değil mi? Kaynakçasına birkaç birşey ekle, gözünü seveyim. Yahu burası önyargılı 'admin'lerle, önyargılı kullanıcılarla kaynıyor; vallahi ellerinden gelse Müslüman toplumlara karşı işlenmiş suçlarla ilgili her makaleyi yerler.

-You are the author of this page, right? Please add a few references to your work... you know, this place is crawling with prejudiced admins and users; given half a chance, they'd eat every article that focuses on the atrocies suffered by Muslim populations. --Alperkaan 08:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

AFD discussion

Hello, you participated in the AfD discussion for Lowercase i prefix. That discussion was closed with a "keep" decision but I felt there was enough consensus to warrant merging the information to Internet-related prefixes. I have placed a comment regarding my decision to go ahead and perform this merge on the talk page here and as you participated in the original discussion wished to alert you to this action and invite you to comment if you felt it was inappropriate. Thanks! Arkyan • (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting the edits made by Mcat31, seems that whoever it is is intent on making small changes in the hopes that they go unnoticed. Thanks again :) Sephui 08:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Vesica piscis

You have continued to ignore everyone else and delete content from this article saying it is supposedly "unreferenced", after plenty of references for it have already been provided both in the article and in the talk page, but which you have obviously preferred not to have even a cursory look at. If you continue with this attitude, I will report you for vandalism. Uaxuctum 11:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The references for the geometric construction are available both in the article and in the talk page. You have been warned twice but chose to ignore it, so now you will be reported for your continued vandalic edits to this article.

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Vesica piscis, you will be blocked from editing. <unsigned; added by : Uaxuctum 11:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)>

All explained in edit comments and talk:Vesica piscis. Please use article talk page to resolve disagreements, rather than arbitrarily apply tags intended for anynymous vandals. Please also don't forget to sign your posts in talk pages. Mukadderat 16:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Islamophobia

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. ITAQALLAH 20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Islamophobia#Parties.27_agreement_to_Messedrocker.27s_offer. ITAQALLAH 14:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Bolding of redirects?

I've posted a question at Wikipedia talk:Redirect where I cite an edit that you did. Your opinion on the matter would be appreciated. Thanks. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 12:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC).
Your input at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia would be much appreciated. Cheers, Daniel 10:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
as you are still involved in dispute on Islamophobia, you may wish to be reminded that mediation has commenced. ITAQALLAH 01:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Ciao. The page is [[2]]. Good work!! --Attilios 08:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Estophobia vs Russophobia

Hi! You voted for deletion of the article Estophobia. Are not the same arguments applicable to Russophobia as well?--Mbuk 07:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumpswing (2nd nomination)

Since you commented on the first AfD for Jumpswing, I would like to invite you to the 2nd nomination. panda 14:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia

Hello! As it would appear, you have not been participating on the Islamophobia RFM. Seeing as you have been listed as an involved party, I think it would be worthwhile if you were to take a look at the discussion and add your own insight. This would be more helpful in reaching an agreement over how to handle the article. Thank you! MessedRocker (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Religion of Peace

The new version was developed to address a number of flaws in the old version. It is a good-faith attempt to resolve some very contentious disputes. Please give it a chance. Alexwoods 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion policy

Muk: I do not find it be to helpful for a policy to say what the subject not. I prefer policy to say what the subject is. Telling me that courtesy blanking is "extremely rare" is not helpful. The only user at Wikipedia that I have ever seen do courtesy blanking is Jimbo. It goes against the undocumented goal of transparency. That transparency is more a significant side-effect in the MediaWiki technology that stated policy, but clearly exists and, based on outside news sources, is a perceived as a significant aspect of the Wikipedia project. If you are so very familiar with what courtesy blanking is and how it is currently practiced at Wikipeida, then please demonstrate your expertise by describing it on that page. Otherwise, please let me demonstrate my expertise in the matter. If you find the results strange then please consider the possibility that the reason is because you are more familiar with how the "undo" button works that with how courtesy blanking works within the project.--Mightyms 06:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You state that "policies are not edited lightly". But you do not state what policy editing is. Do you know that policy editing is? Have you studied it? Can describe it? Should I assume that the reason why is because all you know is a few things that policy editing is not and have no idea what policy editing is? Again: you are not being helpful: as far as I can tell, you are just hitting the undo button because it is the dumb, easy thing to do. Here is a challenge for you: go find me three examples of courtesy blanking so that we can study such useful and rare examples of the phenomena. I have already given you some clues, which you reverted. Good luck.--Mightyms 06:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Muk: Please consider plainly declaring yourself to be a deletionist on your userpage. Your contribs indicate that this is what you are. You have an innate drive to condemn the results of others that you allow to be expressed. Maybe it makes you feel superior. But, as far as I could see in my quick scan, you have done little to help make the existing body of policy clear, direct, plain, focused and accessible to existing users.--07:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightyms (talk • contribs)
Muk: You never studied human perception in detail, have you? Go study the work ofElizabeth Loftus and then maybe listen to David Weinberger's Berkman talk, and then come back and tell me what you know. You write "Colleague, you are new to the project..." Do you not think that perhaps I know who I am? Remember: On the Internet, Nobody Knows You're a Dog. When you make such assertions, you should restrict yourself to what you know with a high degree of confidence and specificity. All you know at the moment is that the account I am using only started making edits a few days ago. I am not very interested in any iterative edit conflicts with you. My goal is to create new knowledge. It is very easy for you to just go hit the "undo" button and erase that knowledge.--Mightyms 07:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Eid Mubarak!

I wish you and your family a blessed Eid.

Your friendly neighborhood Muslim.

If you object to the above message, please remove it, accept my apologies and notify me on my talk page.

Your edit to Vorarephilia

I've reverted your edit to Vorarephilia. You removed a ref claiming that the ref "does not introduce this term", but I'm not sure what you mean. The linked article does discuss vore in the section "You Look Tasty". Perhaps you just missed it? It's not a particularly large section, but given the small number of sources on the article, I'm loath to remove any of them without good reason. If you're disputing that the 'vore' that the article refers to isn't the same as the 'vorarephilia' that our encyclopedia article refers to, then I think you are mistaken. They are described as substantially similar, and the Straight Dope article specifically mentions 'vore' as a short form of 'vorarephilia'. If you feel that the article in The Wave Magazine shouldn't be used as a reference for our article, please bring it up on the article talk page so we can discuss it. Thanks. --Sopoforic 04:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion

As-Salamu Alaykum,

Would you kindly explain what kind of citations you are asking for?
And can you please do that on the talk page?
Thank you. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
PS: 00:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read carefully what the tag says. See wikipedia:Inline citations on how to create them. Mukadderat 17:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Vesica Piscis yonic interpretation

Hi Mukadderat, I've re-added the yonic interpretation to Vesica_piscis#Mystical_and_religious_significance, specifying it as a new age interpretation, together with the references from the talk page. As I understand matters, the yonic interpretation is a common new age interpretation (as attested by the number of references), but I don't know if there is any evidence for it as a traditional interpretation. I've tried to reflect this in the article; from the Talk:Vesica_piscis#Vulva_shape_and_symbolism, this topic has come up before, and you've been concerned about it, so I wanted to alert you and discuss it (User:Mikkalai also seems interested). Nbarth (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(Re: your reply) Got it -- trust the references are sufficient. I came across it from math, specifically Lens (geometry), and recalled having heard of it in gender studies of art.

Nbarth (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

AIV reports

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. For more info, see Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism. Thanks! GlassCobra 17:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Kishlak

Hi, just wondering about this edit of yours in the Chon Tash article. From the article, a "kishlak" appears to be a winter pasture, but in the Chon Tash article your edit implies that it's synonymous with "village". Also, is the word "kishlak" actually Kyrgyz? I'm sure I'm missing something, but at first glance it doesn't seem to make sense to even mention the word in this article at all, let alone as a synonym with "village". Can you shed any light on this? - Hux (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard

Hey, I saw what you wrote on the admin notice board. We can bring this up with WP:RFC I believe, but I'm not sure about the procedure exactly. Malamockq (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Get back to me on this if you are interested. I have made a topic on Less's talk page which you can formally state your complaint to him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LessHeard_vanU#Admin_recall

After that, we can take the case to RFC I believe. Malamockq (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Biruitorul's RfA

"Just the same, from your retort I may conclude that he will abandon editing these articles with the special purpose to have his hands free to enforce prevalence of other Romanian editors by admin actions"

With all due respect, but from my words you can conclude only about me. I am not in association with him to win an adminship. In fact if you review a little, you will notice that I brought him only harm. Nominating him for admin was my ego, he could have lived very well, and perhaps much better, without my participation. Apparently I also caught him on the wrong foot, as he appears to have wanted to have a vacation away from WP (he speaks of mid-April?)

"he does not want to increase his vote count by stating that he will not intervene as admin there"

I don't get what you mean. But anyway, it doesn't matter.

"And Biruitorul (and their defendants) didn't make a single counter-offer towards a compromise in this aspect, which is also a bad sign."

Why should I make counter-offers. I am not running for anything. I only like throughing lines here and there to infatuate the spirits :)
But honestly, would you have changed your mind if Biruitorul would have "offered" something? Not withstanding that I would have considered it very imoral, and could very probably stop talking to him if he would have done that. that's called buying votes in my country. even if you take obligations you would do anyway. Dc76\talk 00:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"And in your pinkish Europe the revolutionary France forbids women to dress how they like."

That's the law: church and state are separated. We have to abide by the law, even when we don't like it. Law made Europe as it is. Without them, Africa would have done better today. (Of cause, this is again me throwing prvocative lines... :-) in case you missed the metaphor ) Dc76\talk 00:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"promise to not use his admin power in Romania-Moldova wikipedian wars if it will help to avoid possible tensions and accusations in taking sides"

Oh, that's what you mean! I thought you wanted him to promiss not to block Romanian POV-pushers. There is one guy, User:Bonaparte. He has a new sock every other day. Because of him, Mikkalai thinks of us all bad, even of such fine users ar Biruitorul. I asked Biruitorul that if he gets the adminship, the first priority to be stopping Bonaparte. And I asked him nothing more. So for him to promiss you that he wouldn't come cloase to Romania article would have been hypocrisy. As long as you don't prevent him acting against Bonaparte, I'm fine.
By buying votes I mean inventing new promisses in the middle of the campain. You have something to promiss, do it before people start critisizing you. At least, based on this principle, I vote. Dc76\talk 01:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"oh that's what you mean!" Yes, that's what I mean and that's what I mean: I strongly suspect that no one (including Biruitorul) really read carefully my proposal: "Biruitorul recuses from administrative actions against editors in good standing (Biruitorul's judgement on "who is who" suffices here) in areas of potential conflict with Biruitorul's convictions (Romania/Moldova/Transnistria/Hungary inter-ethnic, inter-state relations only)". This condition of changing my vote is the condition which alleviate my major objection: "insufficient demonstration of human communication skills". And the Mikka thing was just one example why I came to this conclusion: IMO Biruitorul handled it incorrectly. And by a coincidence I think Mikka's suggestion is good to compensate for this drawback: I think this drawback is less critical in areas which are not areas of conflict involving his convictions: it is a matter of general human psychology. And as a by-product I think it is a good general idea. So if I ever will aspire for adminship, this will be my promise: not to "govern" any areas where I have strong opinions (I don't know yet how to formulate this in a falsifiable manner). Like I already wrote, it is nothing but an extension of the rule that an admin cannot admin the page he edits. Mukadderat (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I really hope Biruitorul sees this. I am afraid he misunderstood you as I did. Frankly I do read different things when I read your comments here and there. But forget it - it is important I understand you now.
About hijab in court, I don't think laws should regulate that, but if they do, we have to obey them. We can not choose to obey only certain laws, otherwise we go back to the stone age. So, either she takes it down, or she does not step inside the court (her laywer however can represent her, so there is no real hinder) It's her habit that prevents her from entering the court, not a third party's obsession. Note that I have nothing against her wearing it, on the contrary. Dc76\talk 01:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think laws should regulate that" -- exactly. I don't think that the law should regulate that at all. I don't see fundamental difference between the law which enforces wearing hijab and the one which enforces not wearing hijab. But let us forget about this now: we will not solve the problems of the world in wikipedia: we can only describe them. Mukadderat (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You are absolutely right. Dc76\talk 21:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Silantyev not Islamologist

The source doesnt say that Silantyev is an Islamologist. I assume that the term "Islamologist" means a scholar on Muslims and their related issues. I have never come across this term before. However, the source does say that he is just the executive secretary of the Inter-religious Council in Russia. I have not come across any fact saying that Silantyev is an Islamologist. I am going to undo the changes that you have made unless you give me a proper reference as to where in the SOURCE does it say that he is an Islamologist. Please reply back. JOYSON (talk)


Dude, I apologize. I accidently went through the wrong reference.JOYSON (talk)

Ramzi Yousef

How is adding the category "Former Muslims" with "Converts from Islam to Christianity" redundant? I can understand "Converts to Christianity" being redundant but how is "Former Muslims" redundant? It just classifies him into the ex-muslim category. JOYSON (talk)

By stating that he was a "Muslim who converted to Christianity" is all that is needed. "A former Muslim who converts from Islam to Cristianity" is like saying, for lack of a better analogy, the ex-member of the church that he left, to join another church.208.254.130.235 (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda

Mozaika was for schools, not for abroad. Simplified foreign language texts with vocabulary explanations.Xx236 (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Wasn't Demokratis a local journal for Greek communist in Poland? I hardly believe Poland was indoctrinating Greece - too long way.Xx236 (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

rm'ed quote "Islamophobia"

I feel the Uri's quote is very relevant to the article. There's nothing arbitrary nor occasional about it. In fact, that point is raised constantly. Somebody already rv'ed your edit, so please refrain from taking it out again without making a case. Salam. Lixy (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

hello

Hello

You reverted one of my edits today:

You are of course welcome to revert an edit you don't agree about... but I have to say I was surprised to see that you used an edit summary accusing me of vandalism: "rvv".

I explained my grounds for removing the external link in my edit summary (per WP:EL). The external link appears to be self-published, and it mentions the topic of the article only in passing, not in a substantive way.

If it's important to you that it stay in the article, I won't make a big deal about it, though I don't see why you'd find it important.

But whether or not you agree with one of my edits, I don't appreciate my good-faith work receiving an accusation of vandalism, so I thought I should post a note to let you know you misread the situation in this case.

Best wishes... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. All is cool... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Prem Rawat

I think you missed the discussion here: [3] Jayen466 21:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

One revert per day

Articles in category:Prem Rawat are subject to community-enforced article probation restrictions for a period of three months, ending June 4, 2008. Probation will be re-assessed at the end of that period, and extended if needed. Editors violating 1RR (one revert per editor per day), or that engage in disruptive editing may incur escalating blocks performed by uninvolved admins, or have other reasonable restrictions placed on them in relation to these topics. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before admin actions are undertaken. Violations, along with a link to this probation notice, should be posted to WP:AN/I, where uninvolved editors will make a determination. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. Mukadderat (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI, that's a standard notice posted on the talk page of every involved editor.
Like you, I have no special interest in Prem Rawat. However, disinterest doesn't give us special privileges. I know that uninvolved editors may wander into an article and say, "how come we're not calling a spafde a spade", or "why is there no mention of the elephant in the room?" Sometimes it's because a single editors has made havoc on NPOV, and sometimes it's because invovled editors have worked out, after lengthy debate, some formula that's minimally acceptable to them. Anyway, please self-revert your last addition of the material, as it's in violation of the special article probation and you may be blocked if you don't. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I will be very appalled if anyobe decides to block me. Blocks are not tools of punishment. They are tools of pereventing further disruption. Since I already posted in the corresponding talk page willingness to follow the rule once I am aware of it, the block for my past actions will be a grave violation of the policies and spirit of wikipedia. Mukadderat (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

1RR article Probation violation notice

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mukadderat_1RR_probation_violation ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am taking 1 hour to read and understand the corresponding rules. Since there is a surprisingly aggressive way of enforcing them unto me from the part of user:Jossi, I unfortunately cannot assume his good faith and unconditionally subdue to his demands. Mukadderat (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Concern

Hope your recovery goes well. I've seen many people with severe medical trauma and I know the long journey back to health. Best wishes.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I thought you'd been hit by a truck but I re-read and realized you had an edit reverted. My mistake.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
It just seemed a little melodramatic. (For the record I have no interest in either side of this case, just been following it for interest in how policy is applied.)--Cube lurker (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

Thank you for visiting my talk page. Just in case you don't know, it's usually considered unnecessary and inadvisable to edit someone else's comments on a talk page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't meant as a reprimand, just a reminder. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


Murad I

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murad_I&diff=206106297&oldid=206103717 You should revert to this version, on knive you can find on talk page, i think poisoned knive info should stay there and it is not trivial! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.1.166 (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the poster

By the way, I don't think I remembered to thank you for finding the poster for this page at Commons. I don't know how you found it. It should solve the content dispute -- although I see that the other poster is back there too now! Coppertwig (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Jewish question

Do you think we could have an end to the move warring at Jewish question and the related dab page? WP:MOS is quite clear that "question" should not be capitalized there. That's why an admin granted my request for a non-controversial move. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that I look again, I see that I may have misunderstood the move history. Apologies if I got this wrong. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:On the Jewish Question (disambiguation)

How are you Mukadderat. Good I hope. But regarding Steven J. Anderson, I think he wrong that he was wrong about your move. Notice that this talk page is now ophaned. Can you fix that? Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is this Talk page not attached to the Article to which it belongs? Have you not notice this detachment? Ludvikus (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Jewish question (disambiguation)

Greetings. You haven't taken a stand in the above. Are just making a Comment, or observation/discussion ? Or are you saying Delete? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Caucasian muhajirs

Category:Caucasian muhajirs, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines about notability

I noticed that you removed my reference to Stargate Atlantis from the Coulrophobia article, just hours after I wrote it. I had not found anything in advance that prevented me from writing what I did, and I have now looked through Wikipedia:Trivia sections, Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles and Wikipedia:Notability (in popular culture), but I could not find guidelines anywhere. The latter proposal has been rejected, by the way. I have even read Talk:Coulrophobia#"Popularity in the media", where the conclusion seems to be that a character associated with coulrophobia qualifies to be in the list. John Sheppard has admitted twice to having coulrophobia. (It is not just a case of being "scared of a clown", like the talk page mentions.)

The reason I am asking is that I try to learn how to behave on Wikipedia, and I am naturally trying to abide by the rules, but as I cannot find the rules this time, I have to ask. Also, I spent quite some time trying to find the correct quotes from Stargate Atlantis. The idea was to add something useful to article, i.e., not just a note about where it is mentioned so that the reader would have to check the source by himself, but also to supply a context, so that a reader could get an overview of how coulrophobia is being pictured in media. But, of course, if what I write is going to be considered spam and immediately removed, I certainly have better things to do than update Wikipedia. Therefore, I would appreciate if you could direct me to the guidelines I should read.

Thanks in advance! --τις (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Evidence presented did not disclose a history of problematic editing, in terms of basic content policy, by Jossi, and the Committee commended Jossi's self-imposed restriction to edit only talk pages for Prem Rawat related articles. Due to a history of incivility and personal attacks surrounding articles related to the Prem Rawat movement, the preexisting community enforced one-revert rule on Prem Rawat and related articles that commenced March 4, 2008, has been superceeded by Arbitration Committee enforced article probation. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

user:Jossi behaved disruptively, aggressively, strongarmed, and derogatively with respect to me during my absolutely episodic involvement in the topic. My evidence was obviously ignored by ArbCom. Jossi still feels rightheous, issued no apology, and now he is reinforced in his righteousness. Mukadderat (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ramzi Yousef

You reverted my revision of the WTC bombing. The part I deleted was a score and irellavent to the article. The deleted portion stated, "where 4 out of 5 marines were killed....resulted in a 12 to 13 victory for Opfor." There were no marines or Opfor involved in the WTC bombing of 1993. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.254.130.235 (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You have to write proper edit summaries. Your edit looked like vandalism from anonymous account. Mukadderat (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, I'll remember to put in summaries in the future. Thanks 208.254.130.235 (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to User:Betacommand/Edit count, you will be blocked from editing. βcommand 15:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you have to refresh your knowledge of policies about what is called vandalism in Wikipedia. Mukadderat (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

On 3RR

Betacommand is not an admin. And, (in my opinion) he's been quite unreasonable on this issue. But, I don't think making the 3RR complaint was wise on your part. To me it looks like both of you are making a big deal out of something that doesn't have to be a big deal. If you want other people's opinions on whether you should be on the list against your will, the 3rr noticeboard isn't really the right place for that. Friday (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just take it to WP:MFD, where it belongs. ➪HiDrNick! 01:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't care much about the page. I was infuriated for being called vandal twice in a row. Mukadderat (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User:Mukadderat. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (I have removed the section.) Thank you--Matilda talk 23:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  • The questioned section is factual: people offended me and did not apologize. User:Matilda is strongly recommended to read and understand the policy WP:NPA. It is absurd when a person cannot express his valid grievance. Mukadderat (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I am editing quietly and not entering into any editing conflicts in any wikipedia articles even in most controversial topics such as Islamophobia. Out of the blue people start calling me vandal and when I protest, I am threatened with blocks! This is absolutely appalling!!!!. Mukadderat (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hello Mukadderat. You have now twice made the same improper edit to a header on WP:AN3. Edit-warring on an administrative noticeboard is for those who don't plan on a long career on Wikipedia. You may be aware that Betacommand's list is controversial, and you are not the only one who dislikes it. If you want to participate in a civilized manner, add your own comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Betacommand/Edit count. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It was not the same: wording was different. And those who deleted my edit are not edit warring, are they? Good luck in your long wikilawyer career on wikipedia. It is amazing how so many people got excited over a stupid thing and started threatening me in all possible ways. Mukadderat (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your note Regards --Matilda talk 23:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your userpage

I've removed the list of attacks form your userpage. Please do not re-add it. - auburnpilot talk 20:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a list abuses agains me. Please get yourself familiarized with the policy you cite. We are not discussing edit wars about an article this list is the list of unjustified abuses (threats) against me and I demand apologies for each case. Mukadderat (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:NPA and WP:USER. If you add the list again, I will personally block you for 24 hours. - auburnpilot talk 20:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
What a society is here in wikipedia when a person is disallowed to stand for their dignity and gets threats piled up. Mukadderat (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That would be a society that stands for civility and condemns attacks. To quote WP:USER: "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" is not permitted. - auburnpilot talk 21:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Then why this civil society does not have means to make user:Betacommand apoligize for calling me vandal twice? Mukadderat (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way caling me a vandal is not a "perceived flaw" it is a tatement of a fact. Do you deny that the called my edit vandalism? Mukadderat (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Nobody can force somebody to apologize for anything. After a discussion on WP:AN, Betacommand has been placed on restrictions by the community: "He is banned from using an automated program to make edits, either on his main account, or bot account. He is also placed on a civility parole, and any edited seen as uncivil by an uninvolved administrator may lead to a block. Failure to comply with either of the restrictions will lead to a block of up to one week.- Ryan Postlethwaite 00:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)". That's more than most get. - auburnpilot talk 21:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It is you who missed the point I did not demand anybody to force an apology. I don't complain to admins. I demanded an apology and quietly wait either an apology or an explanation I don't deserve it. If a person refuses to apologize, it is quite weird that I must be blocked for this. If you don't see the logical fault in all this arrangement, then you all are in deep shit, but don't know this yet. The onbly hope that such cases will multiply and you will have to rethink your policies. I am saying "your" because I am threatened with short "career on wikipedia", so I guess I suddenly became nothing but a nuisance for your happy community simply beause I do not like being called vandal. talk) 21:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat section headings

Thanks for using the talk page to discuss section headings on the Prem Rawat article. Discussion is better than edit warring, even if others choose to use that path. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

POV in "Clown" article

Thanks for reminding me the wiki policy for expressing a POV and I must admit that my choise of words was crude. ButI must notify you that though it was somehow agressive it still was not more than a strong POV. I do think that both the "Clown" and "Coulrophobia" articles are dominated with pro-clown POVs and it seems as a state of sencorship is promoted on the talk articles. Many people dislike clowns and it is quite common POV that they are of no-good-taste but these opinions seem that are ostracised as hate messages or racistic comments. I have personally viewed talk section of religious articles that keep far most offensive POVs in light of individuals' confrotation as a healthy and inevadable way to express different angles of matter.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Russian jokes

Please do understand that the Russian jokes and, beyond it Russian political jokes are NOT the kind of content that can be verified by referencing and sourcing the material, since the most part of these pages contain historical jokes told by one Russian to another and today freely written in Russian newspaper. While I do understand your need for the articles to meet wikipedian standards, I believe that these cannot be canonized by such content filtering. Please merge the both articles into one if you feel that somehow the content is becoming too informal. Thank you, Shadiac (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Answered in your talk page. Wikipedia policies summarized in wikipedia:Attribution are not negotiable. Mukadderat (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Anwered back on mine. Thank you, Shadiac (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If you're such a good policy follower, why don't you show me rules on Wikipedia where it says that any one has a right reverting hours of work of others to complete zero without giving a chance to that person to correct himself. No matter what I will rewrite that article and will add sources and even expand it, if possible. But I personally think you have no respect for others and the simple rule of "don't do to others what you wouldn't want others to do to you" is in no way your behavior.
I may have been harsh on you earlier, whereas you said that "before Wikipedia was allowed to be edited without sourcing". I agree. However, please know this: before Wikipedia was allowed to be reverted to zero of any edit. Today I am against it and if you feel it's unconstructive - recontruct it. Vandalism - de-vandalize. Unsourced - source. Yourself. But reverting work of others is inhumane (and I've always said this to anyone doing it to me). Thank you, Shadiac (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
All I'm asking you is not to delete the under construction template from the page for at least a week. I don't have time to get to that now, but I am willing to rewrite the article pretty soon. Thank you, Shadiac (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, pal. Do you know if there is a template or something with which you can indicate that in the history of an article, there is already good material, just needs sourcing so that other people would know and source it or edit it instead of starting everything anew? Thank you, Shadiac (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Great. Do you personally believe this article is really worth working on? Or maybe it is better be deleted. Because unfortunately, I did not find many sources for it, and the other I found were inadequate. Why not just merge the article into Russian jokes instead? Besides, I liked this idea better since it's mainly more sourcable. Please let me know what you think. Thank you, Shadiac (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Inviting to join the proposed agreement by the mediator at Talk:Prem Rawat#Declaration of agreement to proposal by mediator. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice regarding incivility

Please refrain from incivility or personal attacks, as you did with this edit to Talk:Prem Rawat. Keep a cool head when editing, and please note that the article is still under article probation, and that continuous incivility or personal attacks may lead to arbitration enforcment, or blocks.

Steve Crossin (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Changed my remark to neutral epithets. Mukadderat (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


FPM

A discussion has been started about its reliability here.Bless sins (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)