Ddragovic

Welcome!

Hello, Ddragovic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Institute for Bible, Theology & Hermeneutics, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Institute for Bible, Theology & Hermeneutics

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Institute for Bible, Theology & Hermeneutics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Status and Advice

I saw your changes, and restored the article. But I do not think that by our ordinary standards it is separately notable: Even though at Cambridge, it still remains a recently-founded research institute within a single college, and our usual practice is not to consider these notable. I'm one of the admins here most sympathetic to articles on academic subjects in the humanities, but it would not be fair to give you advice based on my own perceptions of what should be considered notable here,but rather on what the community is likely to judge appropriate for a separate article.

I suggest the best course would be to add a paragraph within the article for St. Mary's, and redirect the article there as a cross reference. If you need help, I can assist you with this--just ask on my talk p. Otherwise, it's highly likely that I or someone else will take it to our regular deletion process, WP:AfD. If you do want to maintain it as a separate article, it will not be defensible without references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online. By third party, we mean outside the University.

If you are interested in adding articles in this subject, what we need most are articles on people who will meet the criteria at either WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR -- either authorities in their field, or people who have written 2 or more books, which have received substantial published reviews. If you do these, remember to add the references to the reviews , etc., at the very first edit. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Hello Ddragovic. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Institute for Bible, Theology & Hermeneutics, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ddragovic. You have new messages at Ukexpat's talk page.
Message added 16:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I also replied to your image alignment question in the section below. ukexpat (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Can someone point me as to where I can find guidance on how to create a link to another wikipedia site but so that it is automatically redirected to a sub-heading on that site rather than to the top of the page.

See Help:Wiki markup, particularly (and here's an example of how to do it) Help:Wiki markup#Link to a section of a page. If, by "another Wikipedia site", you meant a different language version, the same technique works, e.g. es:Ayuda:Edición#Enlaces. JohnCD (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ddragovic. You have new messages at Ukexpat's talk page.
Message added 16:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ukexpat (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ddragovic. You have new messages at ChrisGualtieri's talk page.
Message added 15:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Athari

Sorry, it would appear I've logged back in a tad bit late for the deletion discussion. Either way, the articles current state is absolutely not acceptable, as it was clearly written by an Ash'ari (a rival school) in an attempt to convince readers of their POV. I'll try to find some more moderate (and most likely non-Muslim) sources, perhaps you could review it if you have the time. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

please have a read of my reply on the talk page, what exactly defines it as a school as oppossed to a metholdogy. All I know is the Athari "way" is the third madh`hab in Islamic Aqeedah which roughly translates as "school of thought". Also it's not a "non-school" as some may misunderstand as it has many defining principles tied in with taking mutashabihat as dhaahir in meaning and mutashabihat in modality with tafweedh employed. Sakimonk (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

With regards to the Athari page

I considering entitling it Salafi Theology however after a short while I realised this was a big mistake since the Athari creed pre-dates the Salafi movement by a long shot so wrong call on my part! Sakimonk ^talk 05:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Athari yet again

I'm sorry to bring this up again, but I know that you're quite knowledgeable of Muslim movements and would like to enlist your help. I think my contributions to the discussion previously were disjointed, because I was not looking at all the related articles; I was just looking at the article for Athari. I think I have found a reason for some of the confusion by looking at Arabic Wikipedia.

First of all, on Arabic Wikipedia, the Athari page simply redirects to Ahl al-Hadith. The division of Sunni Islam, as far as I know, is a product of 20th century Muslim scholars only; Muslim scholars before the 20th century and non-Muslim scholars, as far as I know, have not divided Islamic theology at all. It seems to me to be a recent attempt to organize how Sunni Islam is understood, so these ideas were around and were separate but were not really studied as the three groups basically excommunicated each other. For example: Abu Mansour, the founder of the Maturidi school, declared Ash'ari principles regarding inference and internalization to constitute blasphemy; Ash'arites viewed the traditionalists as anthropomorphists, and so forth. Only recently has Muslim scholarship has used the "three groups" thing.

Second, the name Athari seems totally new and unprecedented. Again, my comment above regarding Ahl al-Hadith or Muhadittun or, as I have seen in Orientalist texts, the traditionalists. Ignaz Goldziher defined them as "pre-Ash'arite orthodoxy." This seems to be what people refer to when they mention a third group beyond Ash'ari and Maturidi, though because they refused to engage in theological debate, there is much less written about them in historical texts in both the East and the West.

Here's where things here on English Wikipedia get more complicated: the Salafist political-religious revival movement is being confused with the traditionalist "theology." For example, the division of Tawhid into three categories as you see, is something which came from later proponents of following the Salaf, or early scholars. The problem I'm trying to convey to you here is that I think multiple terms are being misapplied. Part of the problem is that the Athari article mostly contains primary source material from ancient scholars the modern-day Atharis happen to like.

I'm telling you all this because you obviously have studied Islamic theology quite a bit and you seem to have taken an interest. Also, given the gravity of the issues I've illustrated above, I cannot handle all this on my own, especially since Sakimonk has retired from Wikipedia. I hope you're willing to delve into this matter with me so we can get these articles more in line with current mainstream scholarship regarding what is theology and what isn't. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Street

Thank you for the nomination for deletion, hope it goes through.Phd8511 (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Another thank you for the AFD which was cited as deleted. Good job.Phd8511 (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It seems that there is a lot of work that needs to be done to get puff pieces out of Wikipedia. --Ddragovic (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)