Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article A Dragon This Way Comes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
nn book
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Wikipedia: Civility
(WP:CIV) – (WP:FIVE)
ARTICLE:
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT)
CONTESTED EDIT (Article Talk Page):
23:32, 31 March 2010 – Uikku
Section: Notability, single-source, and potential conflict of interest
Hello Fellow Editor,
Hopefully we are not at an impasse. And my communication (written words) is being presented in a “friendly” manner (WP: EQ).
Uikku (maybe others too) you asked “Why?”
ANSWER is at WP:UP
“...helping other Editors to interact with and understand those with whom they are working.”
ANSWER is at WP:TPG
“Keep on topic: The Article Talk Pages are for discussing the Article, not for general conversation about the Article’s subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated Article.
Therefore, the proper discussion area for the “side-issue” (persuasive arguments) between Jagerman and Skyeking is at their USER Talk Pages. In addition Uikku, if you (and others) desire further discussion about your “Why?” question then said discussion will take place here on your USER Talk Page ––– not at the VHEMT Article Talk Page. Otherwise, is Wikipedia Violation.
Once again, my hope is that we are not at an impasse, and that as responsible Editors we can reach an understanding.
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking
(WP: EQ)
P.S.
Please respond at my User Talk Page within 72-hours. If you don’t, I will assume you are in agreement with me. In addition, regarding your contested edit, I will consider it a “Reference Point” (Uikku USER Talk Page) to others who may have the same “Why?” question – thereby preventing discussion of the “Why?” at the Article Talk Page. Skyeking (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for repeated linking of advance information, in spite of the fact that there is no attempt to create an article, and without checking context.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. — Arthur Rubin(talk)23:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
What's up with posting to my talk page and then deleting it? You wrote:
Actually my intention was that someone like you would point that the method (naskh) is not really cherry picking but vice versa. It is really a method to reject cherry picking. It makes reading Quran easier for a muslim and a non-muslim, but one must know its existence and importance. So I thank you for pointing that. I also wanted to point that Spencer had enough discipline to use that same naskh because correct reading of Quran is based on that. That means his method was not cherry picking. --Uikku (talk) 06:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yet naskh (or 'nasikh', I've most often heard the term pronounced this way) was not at all what I was referring to. What I did refer to is described in detail in a discussion in the talk archives of his page, as well as the discussion on why he is not a reliable source, which offers numerous instances of Spencer intentionally overlook or downplaying one ayat and emphasizing another. For this reason, I don't think that his "readings" of the Qur'an are "correct" at all. In those prior discussions I referred you to, not only are such claims scrutinized, but also his claims that "all of the major scholars" and schools of Islamic law support his particular narrative. The simple fact is, they don't.
Note that I've been recently debating with Davidelah regarding Bernard Lewis. Lewis has taken exception to the polemics of people like Spencer, and he also cites sources and references to support his argument. Lewis is certainly no shrinking violet when it comes to criticism, and his academic record as an expert is, especially in comparison to someone like Spencer, undeniably sound.
So it begs the question as to why and under what standards anyone would consider Spencer an "reliable expert". It is one thing to engage in cogent criticism resulting from an objective, careful study: it is quote another to be a fountain of reactionary sectarian polemics. As someone who has studied the requisite languages and worked in the field now for 25 years, I can tell you with full confidence that Spencer is quite obviously engaging in the latter.Jemiljan (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Uikku. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Uikku. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
