Doc Tropics

Hi,

The image was being used in an article. But it got deleted according to this discussion. The point is that the person was not the governor of any district - he was the governor of Lions club, X district (I forget which). As there is no scope for notability of a district chapter of a club, and no probability of an article for the person, I nominated it for deletion.

Anyway, thanks for the note. Perhaps it can be kept and used when this article grows - but I am unsure of its notability as well. Thanks and best wishes -- Raziman T V (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated it for deletion the non-speedy way. Best wishes -- Raziman T V (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree, the current table is much more fitting. How did you stumble onto that stupid little page anyway? Thanks for the help & suggestions. --Michael.tofte (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for notifying me :) - I responded to your concerns. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

• So far I don't think there were any specific weasel phrases in the section. I'll check again to make sure, but so far I don't believe there are any. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Almost all your work at Talk:Raymond_Franz#Sources has been reverted. The article is basically an autobiography. Can you look at trimming its fat again? --71.247.75.118 (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for catching that! I restored an updated version of the stub article, but a number of dubious statements remain. I'll try to keep a closer eye on it. Doc Tropics 00:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Pearl necklace (sexuality). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearl necklace (sexuality) (4th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help on the Lama (martial art) article but anything, right down to items where I provide a source are being deleted and continually reverted.

I have also asked for help from Janggeom as a mediator being a part of the Martial Arts WikiProject but I do not know how much influence he will have on the situation.

Should I just bite the bullet, and create a Pak Hok Pai article? There is so much info and we have one editor that seems to want sole custody of the article Insinr8 (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

When I first restored this material (like you) I could find no reason why this material was considered falsified. There was no explanation on the talk page, as such I resorted it in the expectation that any objections to it would be raised. I then checked on One Night In Hackney assertion that he had indead raised concearns about this, and eventualy found it here [1] the quoted text is as follows. “In contrast to the innovation of the NF in the 1980s, the BNP represented more of a continuation of both the issues and the methods of the 1970s. The combination of a sizeable immigrant community and government attempts to foster a multiracial society enabled it to present the native white population as an oppressed people in their own country. The BNP's 'Rights for Whites' campaign, which took off after a major demonstration in Dewsbury in 1989, marked the behinning of a more active approach. 'The real watershed', as John Tyndall observed, 'signifying the party's determination to enter mainstream politics occurred around 1990” I bleived that my edit here[2] refelcted better what the source was saying then the origional text better.Slatersteven (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the info! It looks like everyone was probably acting in good faith, but Hackney's less-than-ideal responses caused unnecessary escalation. It also seems that your most recent version was quite accurate, and I'm still trying to review and understand why it was reverted yet again. I will try to suggest some sort of compromise wording on the article's talkpage once I have a chance. Doc Tropics 21:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article Irish republican legitimatism, along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a previous Arbitration Enforcement case that closed in October 2007, and was amended by community consensus in October 2008. The current restrictions are: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume it is related. Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.

O Fenian (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the info. Doc Tropics 15:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

as English is not my native language, and I do not have a big experinece of particp[ation in English wiki, as well as I am from the country that has expensive inetrnet connection (so I could allow my slef to visit wiki only few times a week) may you help me to organize Talk:Deletion Wars ? (Idot (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC))Reply

I think it is important that the concept of the relation of Micro and Macroevolution be established. It was a very small edit but it had enough impact to suggest that the two are closely linked which I think the original articled failed to properly do. As Microevolution is the direct process which brings about Macroevolution it naturally follows that this should be very briefly mentioned. Both versions are correct, to be sure, but I believe my edit adds a bit of needed back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.253.3.150 (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I understand the point that you are trying to make but have concerns about both the tone (with regard to POV) and technical accuracy of the text you introduced. Since it was later reverted by another editor as well, it seems that the articles' talkpages would be the best place for an ongoing discussion. Thanks for the note of explanation though....always appreciated  : ) Doc Tropics 17:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Doc Tropics, That person has to provide some solid evidence to support his claim. The Sikhs were stopped at Jamrud, a small town near Peshawar, and the Sikhs had never ruled over whole present day Pakistan. You can read Olaf Caroe's book "The Pathans" in which he has discussed the Sikh period in depth. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domasch (talk • contribs) 15:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Tropics, can I now edit it as I have proved and can further quote from the Encyclopaedia Britannica and Olaf Caroe's book "The Pathans" and from other reliable books to prove that Sikh were stopped at Jamrud and it is also wrong to claim that the Sikhs had wretched whole Pakistan except the province of Sindh .

It has also been added recently that India borders Afghanistan just because the Indian Government claims so. The state Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory between Pakistan and India and unless this dispute is resolved peacefully the current boundaries between these countries are accepted throughout the world. The part of Jammu and Kashmir state that borders Afghanistan is under Pakistan control. (Domasch (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC))Reply

Domasch, it would be better to have this discussion at talk: Afghanistan because Profitoftruth seems to be a subject-matter expert (he is a scholar in this area), while I am simply a "random" editor who occasionally participates there. If two sources are both reliable and they contradict each other, it should be possible to mention both and explain that the exact history is not known with 100% certainty. However, I have not seen evidence that the original source is unreliable, so I will still support the original phrasing. Doc Tropics 13:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for visiting my profile. I would urge you not to do delete, but rather to improve. That's not my POV, that's critics' POV, and it is worth mentioned in the article, thank you Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I understand both the POV and the criticism, and it has its place. However, that place is more properly in the article dedicated to criticism, rather than the very first sentence of this article. If you review Criticism of Muhammad and Criticism of Islam you will find that both polygamy and Muhammad's "personal life" are already covered, and some of your text and references would fit better there. Thanks for your consideration on this topic, Doc Tropics 23:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Also, I'm going to copy/paste these last 2 comments back to your page to keep things all in one place. I'll watch there for further comments.Reply

		The Mensch's Barnstar
		The Mensch's Barnstar shall be awarded to Doc Tropics who has shown integrity and reason while interacting with another user on his/her talkpage. Presented by Mootros (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

oh wow! A Barnstar is always special, but getting one from someone I haven't worked with directly is really a surprise....a very pleasant surprise. Thanks Mootros; Your kindness and generosity is very much appreciated! Doc Tropics 14:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Doc: I posted a reply at User_talk:Noleander#Hi --Noleander (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

yes, sir. And I appreciate your attention to this. But PLEASE do not be too hasty about things....I KNOW what I wrote. Do you know what I actually totally meant? What is the CONTEXT? Nova himself reverts like crazy. And if (within WP's 3RR) I disagree and revert back, then what? An "edit war" will NATURALLY result. BY NOVA TOO, NOT JUST ME. Hence why I say the cliche of "two to tango". (Maybe I should have worded to him as "why start an edit war?", cuz that's really what was meant....THAT BOTH of us would then be in this nonsense, caused and initiated by Nova.) I will NOT start an edit war, or even really engage in one per se. But his own actions (of removing whole sections he doesn't like even though those statements have been factually established and are NOT just "original research", or instead of helping the article by maybe finding better sources, but just deleting things all the time), would also result in "edit warring." It takes AT LEAST TWO on Wikipedia to engage in an edit dispute. And why do that?

I mean, is he gonna dispute the FACT that there are "Anti-Catholics" who do NOT recognize the label of "separated brethren"? Also, I can tell you were hasty in your reading, because you said that I called Nova "anti-Catholic"? Well I did NOT call him that at all. In fact, it seems that Nova is probably very PRO-Catholic. I was referring to "anti-Catholics" in general who reject the term "separated brethren", NOT Nova at all. Hence why I worry that certain editors and admins give too hasty an examination to disputes like this. You said it "jumped out" at you, meanwhile I never even called Nova "Anti-Catholic". But just the opposite. "Uptight" yes. But are we gonna be hyper-sensitive to EVERY blunt and frank word and point? I've seen worse editors than me (trust me I have) who NEVER seem to get in trouble, but are always around. I know this one blunt editor who uses insulting terms like "your windbaggery" to editors quite freely. As an example. Anyway, please like I said, do not be hasty about matters. This guy is NOT perfect either. And that's all I'm saying. thank you. Sweetpoet (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

by the way, I just modified a little bit what I wrote on Nova's talk page... I wrote "I'm serious. Why start an edit war? Because another edit war will happen if you do this again. Caused mainly by you." Again, it takes at least two. And Nova DOES revert edits he doesn't like or finds problems with in a row, a LOT. He knows how to hide his rudeness though, because he won't be as blunt verbally, and he knows how to play the game. He likes to get people he doesn't like in trouble, over real or imagined infractions. There've been people who were very rude and blunt with me months ago on my own talk page, AND I NEVER REPORTED THEM. Cuz overall it's minor petty stuff. Nova, on the other hand, runs to Admins and special pages and brings up their history of "blocks" etc etc, simply to get the person kicked off. The guy is very dis-heartening...Sweetpoet (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sweetpoet, while I appreciate your concerns I'm afraid it won't do you any good to pursue them on my talkpage. As I mentioned on the Noticeboard, I'm not an admin, I just looked over the situation and saw some troubling comments. The fact that you were willing to modify your words after the fact indicates a willingness to attempt civility and work with others, and that's a good thing. On the other hand, you will probably have fewer difficulties in the long run if you think more carefully before you post certain kinds of comments. Good luck, Doc Tropics 16:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the kind words. Please have a gorilla. And on a very different topic it's now snowing again. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 16:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Thanks for your help with the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I thought I'd stop by to say that I'm also glad we've found some common ground at WP. If I seemed defensive at first, it was because to my eye you had jumped into the fray without having awareness of the history of the article and the edits that have been made to it. Whatever the truth of that may be, you now have a history of good faith edits behind you, so that's not a concern. And, no, your joke doesn't rub me the wrong way. I myself feel rather out of place when discussing the mathless sciences. I generally prefer to edit articles related to voting theory -- all the fun of examining human behavior while still getting to work with mathematical proofs! -- Marie Paradox (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your reversion here: not sure why you characterized the addition as original research. It's part of a quotation about Dante and his contemporaries, from a rather influential book. There's a lengthy discussion about how much of that quotation to include at Talk:Muhammad/images#Orientalism and associated subsections. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Should I be flattered? There isn't much fine Dutch food, though tonight we're eating poffertjes. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Poffertjes? Yummy, there may be hope for you after all! Good to see you again :) Doc Tropics 16:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Doc Tropics, I noticed that you're a pretty experienced editor here and was surprised that you haven't been granted rollback rights. I just gave it to you. When you look at a diff, you will see a "rollback" link next to the "undo" link.

Please review WP:ROLLBACK. Rollback is a convenient way to undo vandalism, including successive vandal edits by the same user, with one click. Be sure to use it only for obvious vandalism or other bad-faith edits. Otherwise, stick with the "undo" feature, in which you can provide a rationale in the edit summary to explain your revert. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! That's bound to be a useful tool, and I swear to use my new superpower only for Good  :) Doc Tropics 04:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

At Talk:Muhammad you stated "the Wikipedia standard is self-identity". Please tell me where this is listed so that I may reference it. Thank you. 2tuntony (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

WP:RNPOV is what I use. The example given there is clear enough. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Amatulic; I was taught to use the "self-identity" standard by more experienced editors when I was still new here but wasn't sure which policy included the info. While the RNPOV text doesn't use the phrase "self-identity", its meaning seems clear. As I had thought, it indicates that we use that as a standard, but can also report other views (ie, Amadiyyah regard themselves as Muslims, but not all Muslims agree theat they are).

2tuntony, let me take this opportunity to apologize if my previous remarks seemed brusque. As you might imagine, we have been down this road before and sometimes the repetition can be frustrating. Good luck and happy editing, Doc Tropics 13:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Likewise. 2tuntony (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please be aware that I have submitted a report for your 3rr violation. It doesn't seem correct to list an organization in a list of individuals. Besides, no reliable sources have noted the organization for its criticism of Islam, and as such it doesn't even belong in the article. 68.197.167.149 (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ya gotta love it when IP editors tag-team their deletions to entrap an me into crossing over 3rr, then race to report me. And this seems to be the second time this week a banned editor has tried for some bit of revenge. I guess all those sockpuppets I helped uncover are looking for new things to do with their free time, lol. Doc Tropics 17:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nerrf (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC) With reference to your edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&oldid=388516932, I would like to clarify that the "recent writers" also quote from the same traditional and popular sources, from which the original view is derived. Pls clarify your edit based on the same. ThanksReply

Please see the nomination of this article, which you contributed to, thanks.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Bargar Borock (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Doc, about your edit (revert) on the Muhammad article... you may wish to check these[3][4][5] out (you can just start at the first link and work your way down... or skip to the bottom for the recap). Of course, A.I.G.F., it's probably entirely accidental that the editor in question wants the images removed because of lack of information pointing out how they are historically relevant, or because of lack of cites or cite like material - and then accidentally removes all of that information to cause the very (previously non-existent) problem they are complaining about. I hate such coincidences. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 03:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Can you explain about your edit here? which sourced infor was removed? and which POV?

I kindly ask you to respect Wikipedia policies. Thanks in advance.--Aliwiki (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your mass deletion here and here is against Wikipedia policy of ownership and continuing this manner may lead to further problems for you.--Aliwiki (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nope, just doing my part to help clean up the trash :D Doc Tropics 13:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Discuss on the talk page and prove those sourced sentences are trash, then you can delete it. Your mass deletion of well-organized and sourced sentenced, at the same time that article has lot's of unsourced and unorganized sentences and paragraph is obviously against Wikipedia policies. Hope you respect. --Aliwiki (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Same case here I'll not be able to give much time to wiki from 10 Dec'10 for three weeks or so, and thats long time for an article. Anyways, happy holidays.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 23:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, you too! Doc Tropics 00:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Doc! I'll be on wiki-break this weekend (fri-sat-sun) and will be active by minimum capacity during next two weeks. I know that you also are in wiki-hibernation but incase if you are active meanwhile, can you have watch on article Aisha, it's talk & temp and ANI entry related to IK. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 05:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I'm working every day until the end of the month, but I log in when I can to check for changes and discussions. "Happy holidays" to you, or "good luck with exams", whichever applies!  :) Doc Tropics 16:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm a fellow Third Opinion Wikipedian and noticed that you had removed a dispute from the list at the WP:3O page for having too many editors and being too complex. You may know it already, but the 3O guidelines have recently been changed to say, near the bottom of the page, "Declining requests for third opinions. Even if a request does not fully comply with the guidelines set out here, requests for third opinions should not ordinarily be removed from the list of active disagreements unless a third opinion will be given or unless the request has been listed for more than seven days. If you believe that there is a compelling reason to remove an item from the list for some other reason, it is usually a good idea to discuss the removal on the Third Opinion talk page before taking any action." The seven-day reference is to another relatively recent change which allows disputes to be removed if they they're on the list without being answered for more than seven days. Removing items is not prohibited, just discouraged (and your removal looks like a good call to me), so I just wanted you to know about the changes if you didn't already. Best regards and thanks for your help with the project, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot for the helpful info; I didn't notice the recent changes until after I had taken that action, and then I wasn't sure whether to undo myself or not. I'll make a point of reviewing the new guidelines thoroughly before I "help" anymore. Thanks again, Doc Tropics 18:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi friend. It's my duty to apologize you about what I was thinking about you. Everything was a misunderstanding, as you were deleting everything I was writing, which made me to think there is cabal. Any way, hope you can forgive me. Thanks. --Aliwiki (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for coming to my talkpage Ali, I'm happy to accept your apology. In exchange, please accept my apology for failing to communicate effectively with you. We both became frustrated, but now that we understand each other better, we can move forward. I know that we share the same goal of improving the article, so I promise to have more patience and assume good faith : ) Doc Tropics 19:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

... And thank you Doc, for your note of appreciation! It's often the pleasant unexpected gestures as such, that really encourage me to keep going. Be well, and happy editing! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

My pleasure; nice to "meet" you  :) Doc Tropics 22:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Did you forget about the policy? Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 23:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not at all! I haven't laughed so hard since User:Raphael1 suggested a policy that only Muslims be allowed to edit Islam-related articles. The idea that we might deliberately use the article title to conflate "criticism" with "mythology" must surely be a joke. Although someone with less ability to AGF than myself might begin to suspect he's simply a troll....Doc Tropics 23:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Try to keep it politer though. Just wondering do you remember a talk page discussion about images on an Islamic article where a editor started out wanting to remove the images as offensive. Then when that was shot down they wanted them removed due to a lack of sources. I know its somewhere but I can't think where and I have another editor trying the same thing, Husayan ibn Ali and Hasan ibn Ali. I love the edit summary "high vandalism". Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 01:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Will do, thanks; you know I respect your advice. Regarding that previous talkpage discussion, I definitely recall the pattern, though not the location it took place. I'll check some history and let you know if I find it. And on a personal note, if you do get deleted, I'll do my best to have you recreated. Unless of course someone salts you first. Doc Tropics 02:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. As to being salted I have an infected finger and I've been salting it for several days (soaking it in salty water). Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 14:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah, found it at Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 18#Images violate WP:OR and WP:FRINGE on the Muhammad article and the section below it. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 16:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good job; in the meantime, your new friend has been given an opportunity to reconsider his position. I'll keep those biographies on my watchlist for now, since they seem to attract editors not yet familiar with how policy applies there. There, wasn't that a polite way to phrase it? :) Doc Tropics 17:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Ibn kathir. Thank you. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just trying to make a point here.

Let's say that you are an American liberal. Which would convince you more, an attack on a liberal idea by Nancy Pelosi. Or an attack on a liberal idea by Sarah Palin.

Or let's say you are an American conservative. Which would convince you more: an attack on a conservative idea by Richard Lugar, or an attack on a conservative idea by Barack Obama?

My point here is that it is more efficient and profitable to use "insider" criticism, if available. The closer to the source, the better. Citing unbelievers in an idea or a religion, is not convincing to anyone, unless the wording is terrifically brilliant. If it were that, it would be on television and wouldn't need to "find" it. We are lacking "brilliant" discourse on many topics. Student7 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey there. Have you got an opinion on this [6] ? I invite you to the process. Maybe you could bring some more people along who have a clue on this subject. thanks Someone65 (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

As you might be aware of there is an on-going debate on the statment by Jerry Vines about Muhammad. It seems like there is enough consensus on name calling issue; although there might be difference of opinions on other matters. Please take a look at the discussions and let me know what you think. (The last comment was made by Amoutalic and I get the feeling that pretty much everyone, including Amoutalic, has an agreement on the name calling issue.)Kazemita1 (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do you really speak latin? Or are you just saying that on your userpage? Pass a Method talk 19:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I studied it fairly extensively once and attained some proficiency, but that was almost 40 years ago and it's not exactly useful on a day-to-day basis so I'm not especially "fluent" anymore. I gave myself the "La-1" userbox because it seemed like a fairly accurate reflection of my ability. Can I ask how you stumbled on my userpage? I don't seem to recall "meeting" you...Doc Tropics 16:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just came accross your username on a talkpage. Can't remember exactly where though. Interesting about the Latin though. Languages interest me. Pass a Method talk 22:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Since no one else is responding, I'm going to probably have to start an RfC on the image issue. I simply don't understand why we want an image for which we know absolutely nothing about the source. I could make my own image in photoshop, and it would be equally legitimate. I'll probably work up the wording tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Considering Islamic terrorism, just made by Muslims, is misleading the readers; they would mostly considering that it's normal for Muslims todo such an act (especially a western readers who knows nothing about Islam). You totally ignored the reliable source I added: is the Christian evangelist, John Ankerberg, lying when he said they're minority radicals? Is the following source from Gallup a lie too? "John L. Esposito, Dalia Mogahed, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think(Gallup, 2007) p. 20 "... We have to specify as long as we have appropriate source, don't we? ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you consider a Christian Evangelist to be a reliable source for the religious standing of Muslims then you don't understand what a Reliable Source is. There is no possible way to prove that every Muslim who ever killed a civilian was a "radical minority", so you can't claim that in the intro of the article. Since you have previously removed what actually were reliable sources after calling them "personal opinions", I strongly suggest that you study the WP:RS policy and try to get a grip on it before you undertake further editing. Doc Tropics 14:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think you should reread what you just said; especially as what you called reliable source was a self-published website by a medical sergeant. I'll follow-up on that article there, but keep in mind to think before making claims, please :)

I already gave a reliable source on the Islamic Terrorism article, as a professional analysis by two editors. I gave you a Christian source so you can't say he's an apologist, as I've been through that discussion before. Just trying to save myself a trip, lol. Anyways, you ignored the second source I gave, while you can also see this and this. These terrorists claim that they're Salafi Muslims, while the major Salafi scholars and the center of Salafi schools denied their teachings (considering them a radical minority). So, all those sources are fake and non-reliable, in your opinion? There's a bunch of other Arabic sources, too. Concluding, if the majority is against violence, then what are the rest? minority ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

The information that you are trying to insert into the intro has been covered quite properly, at great length, throughout the article; see especially the "Criticism" section. What you are trying to do though, is to change the very first sentence of the article to claim that this single POV is somehow a universal truth and the only correct interpretation. In fact, we offer several interpretations at length in the main body; we can't and won't single one out and present it in the first sentence that way. Doc Tropics 16:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

@Doc Tropics, sorry to get involved in this discussion. But i dont see much point in arguing with AdamRce/AdvertAdam, you will just waste your time, and the argument will go on for days and days. example here, It maybe better to contact the admin or get a third opinion. Especially when his arguments for deleting content or articles are based on what the quran says, here the user says the article should be deleted and his arguement for deleting it, is his own interpretation of a quran verse. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the advice M2. I notice that he had previously been reported at ANI for "whitewashing" articles and removing negative information. We'll just keep our eyes open. Doc Tropics 14:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I am a PhD student at Carnegie Mellon University doing some research into editing and reverts on Wikipedia. I am asking Wikipedians that I have found have edited biological sciences articles on Wikipedia to complete a short survey that will help me develop interfaces and tools for newcomers and administrators. The survey will take about 10-15 minutes, and will involve you pretending that you are editing the page on genetic engineering and making some quick judgments on how controversial or likely to be reverted a word sampled from an edit might be. This will help me to validate a model that predicts which words will be reverted based on the history of an article, which if successful will be turned into an interface to help with Wikipedia editing and encourage newcomers. If you would like to participate, please complete the survey on SurveyMonkey here. You can find out more about me on my user page and personal home page. I'm more than happy to talk more about this research on my talk page or by email, and thank you for your time. JeffRz (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've opened a discussion to get more opinions about the phrasing in Islamic terrorism here, so I wish you can join. Thanks... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 04:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

check this out , its quite ironic that i is accusing people of violating WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT --Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I am indeed laughing, especially because it expired without being certified by a 2nd editor. Doc Tropics 00:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

His again accusing me of the same things of violating WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at the admin incidents noticeboard. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am very grateful for your concern and advice at my talk page. But there is no edit war at Invasion of Banu Qurayza , what WMC was referring to is this admin incidents post about an edit war over tags between me and Al-Andalusi. WMC and me, think that AdamRce is trying to be provocative, and i think he is trying to draw me into another conflict by adding tags to the Invasion of Banu Qurayza , since he knows what is currently going on and the chance that i could be blocked--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that link. I'll be watching the ANI progress and wishing you the best. Knowing that a trap has been laid is the first step in avoiding it  :) Doc Tropics 15:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please see Category talk:Perspectives on Muhammad#Reverts by Doc Tropics. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've replaced the artist's impression with the calligraphy of Ali; and included the image underneath the infobox. Why do you feel it to be included in the top right? Afterall its just an impression and may not be correct. Ali Fazal (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you check a reasonable sampling of bio articles you will see it is standard practice to include an image of the subject in the top right position as the lead image. This is true even in cases where the image is a painting rather than a photograph, and may not be accurate. For further info (this question has been raised before, many times) see the Muhammad Images FAQ which answers your question (#2) as well as several other common concerns. Also, WP:NOTCENSORED may apply. Thanks, Doc Tropics 02:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ah yes, but what if there is strong reason to believe that the image is completely inaccurate? Should we include it then? Should we assume that the random art of an anonymous person, art which as far as we know exists nowhere other than on Wikimedia websites, be included? Can I now draw pictures for any historical person without an image and upload them and expect them to be added to WP articles? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Jesus, Muhammad and most other historical biographies contain images which are known to be "completely inaccurate"; why should Ali be treated differently? Readers would rather have an inaccurate image than none at all. Qwyrxian, I understand your position, we've been through this before, but I'm afraid we simply disagree. So let me change the subject to another topic we've both looked at: the Kurmi article and Shudra issue. I was impressed by your efforts, and your scholarly approach to a very complicated subject. Personally, I lack the background and resources to make useful contributions there, but I have great admiration for the editors who are working on it. Doc Tropics 13:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks...to be honest, Ali and Muhammad are two of the reasons that I really hope that the WMF opt-in image blocking works. Assuming such images will be flagged in some way, then at that point we can very easily point to the "click that button there to turn the picture off", which is much simpler than the somewhat complex image blocking now. Plus it should be settable for IPs, which means that a Muslim community center could set it "off" and thus make WP accessible to their members. I still think the image on Ali is wrong, but the thought of actually trying to do something about it just spins my head. Also, I do respect your position--it's odd, in that your reasons to keep are far "better" (more persuasive, more fitting with Wikipedia's "ethos") than most of those who would see the same "result" that I want. I'd rather have a "bad" image there than remove it just because one sect of one religion wants it out. Thanks for the comments on Kurmi, etc.; I don't actually edit the articles so much myself as I comment on the talk page and back up those editors that I know do dig deep into esoteric sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Q, I'm certain that you're right about one thing: while we may have differing opinions on that one topic, we are both dedicated to the project and share its goals. With that understanding I have no doubt we can work together productively : ) Doc Tropics 00:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Doc Tropics. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 00:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Doc,

Your opinion is needed here. (Section "Original Research")

Regards, Kazemita1 (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Tropics - your recent edit on Mujaddid is seen as being disruptive editing and appears to be highly controversial pushing a singular point of view. However, not to worry, I've reverted your edit.
If you'd like to discuss, please use the talk page.
Please keep in mind, the ahmediyya is a minute sect which is seen as highly controversial and the majority of Sunni/Shia Muslims regard mirza and the ahmediyya cult as non-Muslim.
Please see Fatwa on Qadianiyyah in the light of Islam for more info. -Qadri fan (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

As the one desiring to make the change, the burden is on your to persuade others on the talk page. Please note that this is a secular, not a religious, encyclopedia and prominent third party sources will in most instances trump religious primary sources. While Muhammad Al-Munajid is notable, he is controversial and his fatwas are not considered a preeminent source for most subjects. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, Qadri Fan isn't content to provide provide all the POVs with appropriate references; instead, he is determined to delete material that he personally disagrees with. Specifically, rather than mention controversy about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's status as a Mujaddid, he is simply removing any mention of Ahmad. The previous version had consensus from the involved editors and had been stable for months; QF still hasn't bothered addressing the issue on the article's talkpage where the most recent section is dedicated to this exact subject.

Thanks for weighing in KC, it's always a pleasure to see your little paw prints on my page  :) Doc Tropics 12:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

That is a pity; removal of sourced, stable content without discussion and without consensus because of your personal beliefs is not generally considered helpful and edit warring to repeat the removals is distinctly against policy. I suggest to Qadri fan that he read the linked pages and reconsider his approach to editing here.

Doc: eh, I have to talk page stalk sometimes, I can't spend *all* my time on AE and Article probation or I'd go crazy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

"...go crazy"? Reliable Sources suggest that "crazier" would be the more technically correct term, heh heh. But I definitely understand the feeling that sometimes you're just chasing your own tail. Doc Tropics 14:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh dang, I didn't know humans did that too! KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

---

As stated in my edit comments, that entire page (Mujaddid) is highly controversial, almost all of those people are not recognised by mainstream and majority of Muslims.
What sort of point are you trying to push here?

I see that page serving only a tiny group of people - the ahmediyya cult, and perhaps some sufi's.

You state this is a secular encyclopaedia, which I agree. However, that page is religious in nature, and very specifically applying to Muslims, so I don't see how secular/atheist views apply to that. Nonetheless, if you have something to offer as an atheist, great, no problem, add your view.

But don't disrupt other good people, editing in good faith, and disrupt articles to push a certain agenda and the views of the minority.

Having said that however, it's saddening, I see the same thing happening all across Islamic articles, being edited by ignorant people, bullying the good folks, until the good disappear and you're left with wretched individuals, rejoicing in their knowledge that they've somehow won.

And thus, I don't find it surprising that majority of Islamic articles are dictated by zionists, Jews, ahmediyya cult, and some atheists (for example, the article on Sheikh Sudais - a person majority of mainstream Muslims look up to and copy, yet it's been highly distorted by zionists and Jews).

And I see you, abusing the position you're given to dictate your terms over the good people on Islamic topics.

As stated, rather than portray the view of the majority of Sunni/Shia Muslims, you've hijacked another article to push one agenda which is applicable to a tiny minority of individuals on this planet.

mirza and the ahmediyya cult are not only highly controversial and inflammatory in nature, and the consensus of the majority that they are a new cult disguised under the banner of Islam, but more so that it's highly damaging and an attempt to distort and damage Islam from the inside.

A little like what you two are doing with the position you're given on this forum - dictating your terms over the good people on Islamic topics of which you know nothing about, and only applying part of the rules of wikipedia when it suites you, so that you can rejoice in the knowledge that you've done your good part.

No wonder, majority of the good people leave and we (Muslims) ignore wikipedia altogether when it comes to Islamic articles. Only sometimes applying corrections when time permits. Of course, most of the corrections from good people are thrown out.

With regards to the article being like that for some time... and? It doesn't mean it was in a good, correct state all that time; it may simply mean that your abuse has driven the good contributors out (as you can see from the talk page) - like you're doing to me.

Rather than reach a consensus, you've bullied and pushed all the good people away until you're left with wretched individuals pushing their views of the tiny minority. You only have to look at the talk page to see how many people have over time raised the issue of this wretched individual - mirza and his cult - and the good people have been bullied and driven away.

Also quite shocked by your comment: -

I have to ask, when was the last time you went to any (sunni) Mosque or talked about Islam with any Muslim (not over the net)?

Also, quick question, what religion or sect do you both subscribe to?

- Qadri fan (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

---

All I can say to the above is that your Truth doesn't trump my sources and the kind of paranoid racism you exhibit is abhorrent in any civilized forum. I leave any further response to those with more tools to handle it than I. Doc Tropics 19:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

SubhanAllah, as stated in wikipedia, Sunni and Shia Muslims make up almost 100% of Muslims, and yet that article and the view you're pushing makes up 1% (if not less than that) of the Muslim population... and then you have to audacity to claim that I'm pushing my point of view?! SubhanAllah, wake up Doc.

Also, me being racist?? Unbelievable - that's clear abuse. - Qadri fan (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

We are talking about the term, the others like Lomari may correspond to other terms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.69.224.46 (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Each of the items you deleted leads to an article that relates directly to the word gypsy; any and all of them might be useful to the reader searching for information. Each of the subgroups, with the possible exception of Salab people (for which we currently lack an article), reasonably belongs on the page. That's really the whole purpose of pages like that - to help guide readers to all related information. Doc Tropics 19:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have used diffs of your posts in an arbcom request filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Controversial_images.2C_NOTCENSORED.2C_and_Foundation_principles.

You are not listed as a party, and I have only used the diffs as examples of particular discursive moves. This notice is purely for your own information. --Ludwigs2 03:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Are you watching Criticism of Islam? There have been many changes there recently. Would appreciate another opinion. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review/unblock proposal, in which you might have an interest. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the effort you put into preparing that and seeing it through. I can't believe the whole issue resolved itself while I was out getting lunch...I didn't even get to !vote, lol. Doc Tropics 21:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

The things you miss when you go for lunch, eh :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your efforts in shedding light on the case.Bless sins (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy that I was able to help. Given the weight of the evidence and our policy to assume good faith it seems to have resolved exactly the way it should have. You did a great job of speaking for yourself without losing patience or showing the frustration you probably felt. Happy editing, Doc Tropics 21:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your attempt to contribute for the article Velankanni. Please do not indulge in [section blanking]. Before editing that article have a discussion in the discussion page — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownyCat (talk • contribs) 05:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I also understand from the discussions that had occured on your Talk page that you are with pro islam agenda and doing some section blanking jobs in wiki to promote your agenda!BrownyCat (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for coming to my talkpage with your concerns. I tried to make my edit summaries very clear: the sections that I removed do not belong in that article. It might be possible to create an article about the church, but minute details about a church don't belong in the article about a town. However, hours of operation, telephone contact information and numerous small details regarding its construction (unless directly relevant to its notability), shouldn't be included in either article. What would be relevant is more details about why the church is important to pilgrims, who makes these pilgrimages, and even when they travel.

Regarding my agenda, all I can say is "you are wrong". In general, it would be best to avoid speculating about the motives of others. it's not productive, just insulting. I'll continue to monitor Velankanni town in order to maintain its quality and compliance with WP policies, but I will also put in more effort to improve it vis-a-vis actual writing quality. Thanks, Doc Tropics 14:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wait until User:Kumaripriya gets involved, then you will know what troublesome editing is really like. BrownyCat appealed for help from them a few hours ago. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip. I'm surprised but pleased to hear from you; I see your name on a number of pages that I watch and you do good work. Thanks again, Doc Tropics 17:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

What I do is a lot of fighting, unfortunately. I guess that I must be fighting for the "right side", though, as I still have that clean block log! Thanks for the compliment. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

My pleasure. I believe I first encountered you working on the Shudra article, and that was a classic POV nightmare. It took a lot of time and effort, but eventually balance was restored. Doc Tropics 17:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

As I've noticed from some of your page visits that you may be stalking me... why? -Qadri fan (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm not specifically aware that I've interacted with you at any page besides Mujaddid and I'm definitely not stalking you. I am active across a broad number of pages though, so it's possible we've edited the same articles unintentionally. When editors have similar interests this is fairly common. If you are active in many Islam-related articles, as I am, then we will most probably meet in various pages from time to time...nothing sinister about it. Happy editing, Doc Tropics 02:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your reaction to my editing of this subject is strange and somewhat undermines attempts to give a more accurate assessment of the topic. Presumably the portrayal of information in a light-hearted manner, even by a well-informed source, is regarded as taboo.

It's also rather a mystery as to why the seemingly self-appointed "we" of Wikipedia should be so attentive to the editing of such trivial articles.

All the best 90.199.27.242 (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

As an encyclopedia it is not appropriate to write in a "light-hearted manner"; rather we strive for an encyclopedic tone. It is especially inappropriate to assume a tone that is denigrating to the article's subject, as your comments did. Please feel free to edit constructively, preferably by using reliable sources, but stop adding your personal opinions into articles. Doc Tropics 18:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ah yes, the shadowy "we" again. I entirely refute your assertion that my contributions (and the original edits by 90.199.27.167) have been denigratory or unreliable - are you aware of just how nonsensical the subject really is ? - and would question whether Wikipedia should be taken seriously if Tooting & Mitcham is the kind of topic it actively encourages. Quis custodes ipso custodiet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.27.242 (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Check out the IP's addition to my talk page. Cheers! Jim1138 (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Heh heh, thanks for the pointer, and for helping with the article. A literate vandal with a large vocabulary is still a vandal  : ) Doc Tropics 09:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Whereas a little group of mutually preening monitors who actually contribute very little in the way of constructive information are merely to be pitied. Do your employers have any idea how much of their time you are wasting on this nonsense ?

90.199.27.113 (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Opinions are like assholes....everybody has one. That doesn't mean it's polite to expose yours in public. Doc Tropics 12:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I started an AfD discussion that may be of interest to you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obscenity the other side of Aisha. VQuakr (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please do not reinstate racist and conspiracy views back into the Islamic Golden Age article. You've been told repeatedly that this 'Trifkovic' is not reliable yet you haven't countered that with anything useful other than your childish accusations of "untrustworthiness" and "suspicious editing" towards other users. The claim that the period of the Islamic Golden Age was nothing but a "myth" is as retarded as saying a round earth is a myth. While it appears that you might hold similar views with that of the unreliable author (as evident by the number of reverts you made), I'm afraid Wikipedia is not the platform to propagate such idiotic views just because he is a "notable commentator".

Furthermore, your behaviour is quite hypocritical considering you were one of the earliest users to back the alleged clean-up of Islamic civilization articles from "unreliable" references. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yawn. Doc Tropics 01:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Islamic Golden Age regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

As you were kind enough to offer your thoughts on the above article back in January, I would appreciate your opinion of teh recent changes to the article, especially the external links. More background is at Talk:Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab#POV again. Thank you and regards. ClaretAsh 09:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

On another topic, I hope you don't mind me quoting this little gem on my userpage? ClaretAsh 10:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Faith Freedom International is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be merged with Ali Sina (activist).

The article will be discussed at Talk:Faith Freedom International until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the merge-template from the top of the article.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for supporting my unblock.I wont edit war again, because am only allowed to revert 1 edit in 24 hours for 1 year.

I am very grateful for your support, and wont let you down. Happy editing --Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

can you tell me if there is anything wrong with the article mentioned in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Misconceptions2#Request_for_comment

Thanks--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your edit

"Holmes poses with the body of Gul Mudin immediately after the boy was killed."

"Holmes poses with the body of Gul Mudin immediately after he murdered the 15 year old boy."

The original image text you restored seems to be from before the murder convictions. Now there are convicted so it seems naturally to update the text accordingly with the undisputed facts.

Please explain to me where there is a POV? Thank you. U-9 or U9 (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

The current monthly WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening collaborations are:   Blanching (horticulture) Damping off Gertrude Jekyll Horticultural flora Square foot gardening The next collaborations will be posted on July 1, 2012. To propose future collaborations, please contribute here!

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your latest edits at Islamophobia, I would like to inform you that there is an ongoing discussion of this topic on the article's talk page. I have reverted your edits and ask you to participate in the discussion and edit in a way that accurately presents the sources' points of view. I may be of assistance when it comes to providing those sources. Regards, benjamil ^talk/_edits 20:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Thanks for trying to solve the honorific title issue at Muhammad Iqbal, anyway I had modified your edit with some coreection and cited reliable source, and specified it here with valid reason, Any way if you feel that it is not appropriately meet the MOS, please feel free to revert/correct it. I would appreciate if you could point out some more major corrections at this article, Any way after Ramadan i intend to start working here, So please be kind enough to guide us in c/e and citation coding. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, and thanks for your comments and contributions. I supported your change on the talkpage and just made a minor adjustment to the sentence in the article: it seemed to be missing the word "to". I look forward to working with you after Ramadan. Happy editing, Doc Tropics 00:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for helping by providing suggestions and edits for the Smithfield Foods article. How do you think the article could get the attention of the broader Wiki community? Would you consider adding a POV template? As an employee of the company, I'm hoping to work with other editors to get this the attention it needs instead of adding these types of tags/templates myself. Thanks again, Kkirkham (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sorry I didn't respond more quickly, my editing opportunities tend to be irregular. I see that there is ongoing discussion on the article's talkpage and I restored the POV template. Obviously this is a contentious area but I believe that you are proceeding appropriately. I will do what I can to help, but broader attention would certainly be beneficial. I'm disappointed that your original posting to the NPOV noticeboard didn't draw more response, but the issue is not an easy one with an obvious solution, so it takes more of a commitment than many editors are able or willing to make. I'm considering how to proceed and want to review a bit more. Doc Tropics 16:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much. I appreciate it. I understand this is a complicated case and I agree that it didn't get more attention because it will take a lot of time to correct. I'm happy to help to find resources or draft sections for other editors to review, to make it less time consuming for them, if that would be helpful. I actually started a re-draft of the intro paragraphs on my Sandbox page, just updating outdated information and deleting misinformation, so feel free to check that out if you have a spare moment. Thanks again, Kkirkham (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I looked at your draft. You need to use third party sources. That should not be difficult because these sources typically rely on information provided by the company, but publication in a third party source makes the information reliable and establishes its signficance. TFD (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

TFD, Thanks very much for investing your time in reviewing the draft and providing useful suggestions and insight. You make an excellent point which should certainly be part of our efforts as we move forward with improving the article. Your help is appreciated and any further contributions would be welcome. Thanks again, Doc Tropics 19:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

The current monthly WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening collaborations are:   Cold frame Fodder Gardening in Alaska National Organic Program Saint Petersburg Botanical Garden The next collaborations will be posted on December 1, 2012. To propose future collaborations, please contribute here! V • T

From: Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

The current monthly WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening collaborations are:   Agribusiness Bolting (horticulture) Garden city movement Garden design Grex (horticulture) The next collaborations will be posted on January 1, 2013. To propose future collaborations, please contribute here! V • T

From: Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

In a post on talk page of Muhammad in Islam, you suggested that Muhammad's historical place within the religion that he founded should be discussed. Currently I'm trying to give this article a good shape, but I'm not sure what items or information should be included about his historical place. Will you please discuss this on its talk page so that I can get some clue. Waiting for your reply and cooperation...--AsceticRosé ^talk 04:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Doc,

Hope that you are doing good. Can you please have look on article Muawiyah I? There is a huge edit-war and talk-page spat going on there. Hope you have time to mediate. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the dispute is still underway can you please look into it; fyi, I'm not party to the dispute I was approached for mediation but I thought somebody who is more neutral to the nature of article's subject will be better.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 05:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Your signature is also causing Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Doc Tropics|Doc ]] <font color ="green">[[User talk:Doc Tropics|Tropics]]</font > → Doc Tropics

to

[[User:Doc Tropics|Doc ]] [[User talk:Doc Tropics|<span style="color: green;">Tropics</span>]] → Doc Tropics

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Most users are updating their signatures as requested. We hope you will also. —Anomalocaris (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply