User talk:Nayan Nev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... and happiness too!


Welcome!

Hello, Nayan Nev, 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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  AnupamTalk 22:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Links for Wikipedians interested in India content

Register: Indian Wikipedians | Network: Noticeboard | Discussionboard Browse: India | Open tasks | Deletions
Contribute content: Collaboration Dashboard - India WikiProject - Wikiportal India - Indian current events - Category adoptions



Contents

[edit] Re:Thanks

Your'e very welcome! Good luck editing and if you have any questions, please feel free to let me know. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Wallechinsky

The reason I reverted your addition - and have done so again - is because the article on this person is not an appropriate place for attacking Mubarak and praising Khamene'i. If you wish to comment that some disagree with his rankings, that's a reasonable thing to do if you can back it up with external sources, but this article is not the place to go into detailed criticism of the individuals in question. -- Kazrak 00:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VirtualEye

Thanks for this. You wouldn't believe what has been going on with discussions relating to him. --Hojimachongtalk 01:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. Also you have my sympathies. I wonder why he hasn't been banned given that from the IP addresses it is obvious he has been using sockpuppets. NN 01:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sparta

"Sparta as a "world power" removed" point me to that discusion, while sparta may have the best man for man army on the planet when they were around, they exerted little force outside greece. I belt the Celts arn't mentioned as a world power but they had teritory from northern spain to finland/latvia and down to germany. Hypnosadist 02:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. There were all kinds of other powers in the world at that time. Celts, Gauls, Nordics, Slavs, Chinese, Indians etc. etc. with who Sparta had no interaction. May have had the best man for man army, but cannot be called a "world power". NN 02:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The 'world power' was changed to 'superpower' a long time ago. Celts were powerful too, after all they sacked Rome. Miskin 22:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing warnings

As much as I disagree, the community has decided it is acceptable for users to remove warnings from their page. I think this is a silly thing to allow, but the community disagrees. You can however take the removal of a warning as a sign that the user has read it. I have a tool that can create a full archive(including items blanked) of a talk page. I can run it on ALM's talk page and link it for you. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A full archive of User talk:ALM scientist will be generated here User_talk:HighInBC/Temporary_page_indexes/User_talk:ALM_scientist momentarily. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know and for the link. NN 15:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The vote

Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Archive10   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the vote. I have to say that was long discussion and I couldn't even find its conclusion. Obviously there are a lot of people with strong opinions on the matter. NN 19:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a conclusion. There was the second option which got the highest number of votes (37 or so), which is the currently used in the article.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Rereading it I see your point. NN 19:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Nayan, I'm flattered that I annoyed you so much on Sparta that you decided to engage in wiki-stalking for my benefit. Good job!--Domitius 18:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't give yourself undue importance. NN 18:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sparta

I just protected what was up when I got here, my protecting the current version is not an edorsement of that version. I have no opinion on either versions, actually. Khoikhoi 01:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, I will look at your past edits and protections if you don't mind. NN 01:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that if this conflict can't be resolved, you could try going to WP:RFM. Khoikhoi 03:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. BTW, do you want me to add a dispute tag to the Sparta article? Perhaps {{disputed}} or {{POV-check}}? Khoikhoi 21:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

Can you enable your e-mail address please? Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.83.34 (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] You're welcome

Absolutely. Administrators can and do lose their sysop bits for blocking people they're in conflict with. This was obviously and wildly inappropriate, and at the very least he owes you a major apology. If he'd blocked you for a longer time, I'd be asking for him to lose his administrator powers. As it is, he needs to refamiliarize himself with the blocking policy and WP:POINT. The apology, in my opinion, is absolutely non-negotiable. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you. AniMate 01:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on your AN/I report. You should get help from an experienced editor or find a advocate, to start a RFC on Yannismarou's inappropriate conduct. --Mardavich 03:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
So you know, both Chris73 and I have both posted notes on Yannismarou's talkpage. I'd like to say I think you are handling this marvelously well, and your request for a review of the situation is calm and well reasoned, attitudes that many editors in you position wouldn't be able to muster.
I'll definitely be keeping an eye on the situation, and wish you luck in getting this resolved to your liking. I'm not sure, however, if an RfC is going to be necessary, as this wasn't a malicious block. I think Yannismarou made a mistake, and hopefully he'll apologize for it and you both can get back to editing. If things don't work out in a way you're okay with, I'd be more than happy to help you with the next steps in dispute resolution. AniMate 03:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Update on Sparta Article

I have protested your blockage from the article and the ensuing insertion of LEGENDARY information in the Sparta article. I have also made a "Request for Significant Edit to a Protected Page" with the reasons stated, namely:

- erroneous re-editing of article to include legendary information and stating it as "fact"

- incorrect and repeated use of the word "superpower".

Unfortunately these situations often arise with the release of fictional Hollywood movies based on what is already greek legend (like "300" and "Alexander"). It will of course subside and the facts will once again speak for themselves...

Regards.

Mehrshad123 05:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improper blocking and ANI thread

My opinion:

Yes, you were improperly blocked. Y used admin bits to his advantage in a content dispute.

You are continuing to push pretty hard on the ANI page. You need to back off a bit. Everyone has seen what he did. If you want to file a RFC on his actions, feel free to, but it's going to be somewhat redundant with the ANI discussion. I understand why you are frustrated, but the damage has already been done. If you act gracefully then it's likely to calm the situation down faster. Whether you like him or not, he and the others on Talk:Sparta are still going to be there tomorrow and next week, and you all have to get along.

Just my two cents as an uninvolved admin. If anything else happens, feel free to leave me a talk message or Wikipedia email. Georgewilliamherbert 07:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for both your responses on my talk page. Hopefully all the abusive aspects of this incident are now all past and we can all get back to making an encyclopedia. Georgewilliamherbert 07:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi NN. Completely agree with Georgewilliamherbert. I have not yet made up my mind about Y's latest response, but I hope that this whole process will come to a good end, and my first feedback on the situation was useful. Overall I hope that Y will understand his mistake. Best wishes and happy editing. -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both Chris73 and Georgewilliamherbert. I'm glad Yanni apologized, thoguh I'm not exactly satisfied by it, as it shows no understanding of WP:BLOCK or WP:POINT, but he's going to be watched. I'm going to keep an eye on the Sparta page as well, as it appears the other editors in this dispute STILL don't understand that you did nothing warranting a block either. Good luck and good editing. If the tone of things do not improve, you may want to file that RfC or try getting some outside opinions from the WikiProject Ancient Greece and Rome (there's a link at the top of the Sparta talkpage). AniMate 20:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sparta and Mediation

I don't think you should make any more accusations against Miskin or anyone else on the talk page for Sparta. It's not the place for it. If you feel wronged by him, you should go to WP:AN/I again. As it is, Miskin doesn't have much faith in the RfC. It's not the same as an RfC about an user, there isn't a special page for debate. Another option is filing a case with the Mediation Cabal. I've made the offer on his talk page, and I'm making it here as well. Regardless, you shouldn't bring up the accusations of removing sourced info on Sparta's talk page again.AniMate 03:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, NN 03:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your fallacies against me

Nayan you went through all this in order to make Yannismaru apologise to you, started a whole new section bragging about it, and you won't apologise for your clearly unjustified attacks against me? Miskin 03:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What new section did I start? NN 03:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't apologise for indirectly calling me a liar I'll take the diffs to the people who supported you in your AnI against Yannismaru and everyone will see how you've been trolling since the very beginning. Miskin 03:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't answer the questions I ask you, we cannot have a discussion. NN 03:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You can play it crazy as much as you want, there are witnesses this time. I'll let you think about it until tomorrow. Miskin 03:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, what new section did I start? NN 04:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been called by Miskin to witness trolling behavior by NN here. Personally, I don't see trolling. I see an accusation of a bragging section, which I think must be referring to this as it is the only section I can see he has added today. It doesn't sound like he's bragging about Yannismarou. I do see unfounded accusations from both of you though, and this latest round was definitely provoked by NN -- and he should apologize for it and retract it. I can't force him to. From what I can see, you both removed sourced info, and at times you both tried to rework it into the article (other times you both didn't). I'd personally like for you both to apologize and remain focused on improving the article and encyclopedia, but you both seem determined to fight instead. I don't know what you guys want to accomplish with this, but I think you should let this personal BS go. You have both been uncivil, and you both still need to cut it out.

NN, please stop provoking Miskin. It's not productive. Let's see how the RfC goes, and go on from there. MedCab is still an option, though it can wait a couple of days.

In the meantime, stay away from each other... and NN, no more provoking. AniMate 04:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason I started the section was to counter claims left in various places by Miskin that I had removed referenced material. I will endeavor to reduce interaction with him. NN 04:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Great. From now on, don't post anything about him at all. If you feel you must respond to something he has posted, respond about the substance of what he wrote in regards to the article, and ignore anything you consider to be a personal attack.
Remember, only post about the article. AniMate 04:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. NN 04:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree, here, with AniMate, NN. It's best if you avoid interacting with Miskin. He's clearly trying to prod you into saying things you shouldn't. Resist the temptation. The whole "superpower" question seems to be going well, in that most people seem to be tending toward the idea that applying the term to Sparta is ridiculous. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
And what exactly is your problem Geda? Are you _that_ bored? Miskin 20:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem. Thanks for asking. Think calm thoughts. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SuperPower

That is referring to its time. The Roman Empire is also often called a super power, as well as Chinese Empires. It is not "superpower" in the modern sense, but super power of their days. I'd appreciate it if you un-did your edits.Azerbaijani 15:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There has been a very long discussion about this on the Sparta talk page, please take a look. NN 21:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Thanks very much for the barnstar and the encouragement. Arrow740 20:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome, NN 03:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Edit on Children an Islam

You advocated to include children's rites in Saudi Arabia, it is inappropriate for two main reasons:

1. Saudi Arabian laws forbid raising hands on children by any public servents that includes teachers in schools, that is the reason maybe that their children are very unruly. 2. The article is about treatment of children according to Islam, now even if saudi arabia claims to adhere to islamic priniciple, if it voilates it , or it adhers to it does not merit its inclusion in this ariticle, u can satrt a new article: Treatemnt of children in Muslim countries and include it there if u want.

You also included some stuff on slavery in the article, plz move that to the main article Islam and Slavery. Hope we can reach an understanding regarding this.

Smus 10:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, If the material is inaccurate please feel free to remove it. My point was that the material is relevant (assuming it is correct). NN 03:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for understanding. Smus 05:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and slavery...

Hello there, i noticed you revert my changes saying that the grammar was poor. If that is so, wouldn't fixing the grammar have been a better option as I was merely trying to get the article to more closely resemble the source? Perhaps you could look at the source yourself and make a change accordingly if you are not satisfied with my second change. [1] many thanks. --Merbabu 15:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Islamic military jurisprudence

Your edits have made the article into a complete mess [2]. Previously I assumed good faith for your edits. But repeatedly causing a significant amount of material to disappear can be considered vandalism. Here are just a few problems with your edits.

  • I can no longer see the references, notes or any other section below the "Sexual intercourse with female captives" section on the article Islamic military jurisprudence. This is because you have made a technical error, and your refuse to allow me to correct it.
  • The website you have referenced quotes 23:5-6 not 33:50 (which is what you are quoting). I've even told you are mixing two completely different verse, yet you refuse to listen to me.
  • You inserted "Judicial precedent for this practice is unchallenged among mainstream scholars". No, the opinion of one scholar, who isn't even notable, doesn't count as "mainstream scholars". The opinions of Muhammad S. al-Munajjid must be attributed to him.
  • You inserted "no mention of requiring consent of the female in the Koran". The Quran does not say such a thing. The Quran doesn't say a million different things, are you going to insert all of them? Please don't insert OR, and provide secondary sources.Bless sins 17:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You need to note that I was reverting your removal of material put into the article by Karl Meier. The objective was not to remove any referenced material you had inserted. If you insert the material without removing referenced material inserted by others, then I will not revert. You also removed the line "Also there is no mention of requiring consent of the female in the Koran". This is an accurate description of a primary source. Yes, the Koran doesn't say a million things. It doesn't tell us the atomic weight of Carbon, the distance of the earth from the sun, etc. etc. However these are not relevant to this article. The issue of a woman's consent is relevant when we discuss sex, hence the bit about what the Koran says or does not say on the matter. Or are you saying that a woman's consent is not relevant? NN 03:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't care what you were doing. If your edits were in good faith, I suggest you self revert, or clean up the mess you have made. Else, your careless editing is causing much disruption on the article. Also, let's take this to talk page.Bless sins 04:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
"I don't care what you are doing"??? Drop the attitude and we may make some progress. NN 04:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Your edits blank out a quarter of the article. When I attempt to restore those parts you revert me. I raise the issue on you talk page, and you make no attempt to correct yourself. I think it is fair for me to not care about your OR additions, and revert so that we can get the rest of the article back.Bless sins 05:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you can do the edits separately. Add referenced material without removing referenced material and I will not revert. NN 05:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signing talk pages

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!--Sefringle 22:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I usually remember to put the 4 tildes, sometimes I forget. Regards, NN 02:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual Consent of Female Slaves

While you are right in your statement, you can't put it in the article exactly like that by Wiki standards. If you can find a reliable source or a notable one who makes this observation, I believe it has to be put in that way saying, for example:

"'Mr Smith' has noted that while the Qur'an allows sex with the female slave, it does not state whether the consent of the female slave is required.[1]

That way there is proper attribution, and it doesn't look like WP:OR

Thank you for finding my talk page and I notice you do a lot of good work here in general. Thank you :) --ProtectWomen 18:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read through Islam and slavery. There is stuff in there about sex with slaves that you could fork over. Arrow740 07:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Will do, thanks. NN 07:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

NN, you're welcome and many thanks for adding the text from that link. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're welcome

Yes that was a nice link from FFI to the slave article. I want to thank you also for your contributions, great work. As you saw, its a bsttle getting the truth to fit in here, when everyone else is tying their best to censor it out. If we look back in time, things have improved so time is on our side as truth cannot be censored, ultimately it comes out. --Matt57 21:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

Can you please explain the concern you think was not resolved per [3]. Thanks --Aminz 19:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Open toc, Regards NN 19:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad

If you could look over that article, I'd appreciate it. Arrow740 08:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamic military jurisprudence.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 08:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] American thinker

They're right, that stuff belongs in Criticism of Muhammad, Criticism of Islam, or Criticism of the Quran. Arrow740 20:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I will respond in full tomorrow or the next day. Arrow740 06:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines for Islam and Controversy articles

I see the edit warring you had to face here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)

We have this taskforce now: Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Islam and Controversy task force

What we can do over here among other things is, give clear help and guidance to people on the Islam and Controversy articles. I plan to improve the taskforce's page more. I'll also make a userbox and other features to make this taskforce visible. It should basically be a place where editors who work on these articles can work quicker and more efficiently. We can have links and guides to reliable sources as well. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, yes you described the difficulties very well. We will deal with these wrongful policies which are selectively imposed on articles at will. Hopefully the taskforce will help in this. Wikipedia started with editors censoring content as POV. That has been overcome. We'll improve this taskforce. One reason the taskforce is here is to organize the effort to keep controversy articles free of POV vandalism, something which plagues almost every controversial article on Islam. I will do more for the taskforce as time passes. I added a Books section here [4]. See, if editors are complaining we should use RS, we have so many books critical of Islam that we could never run out of reference material. We have limitless RS's if we refer from these books and Google has enough books for sources. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar! --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arlandson

None of his articles on Islam, however, appear to have been done for scholarly or peer-review journals as far as I can tell. (None of them, for example, show up on scholar.google.com; either as text, or - more importantly - cited. ) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The NYT is also a reliable source; it is well-known, widely accepted, and fairly competently edited. Also, when it gets things wrong, its competition and critics announce that they have. Amnerican Thought has none of these advantages (except perhaps the editing, and we have no evidence of that.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)