User talk:MasonicDevice/Archive 1

Hi. You know the drill. Write me here, I'll answer here; write me on a neutral talk page, I'll answer there if I have something to say; write me on your talk page, and I might not see it.

Re: Talk/Muhammad/images

Also, thank you for your assistance and helpful comments at Talk:Muhammad/images -Harmil (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were answering a previous question or something that was archived, didn't see the connection between Naeem1986's comment and yours, must be because I'm tired...Anyway I'm sorry. Regards, Abdallah (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

hehe, true..but I have an exam tomorrow, so I'm studying as well as looking around Wikipedia...Will get some sleep in a while. Abdallah (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow

[1] Those are some damn good points! Good work. Jmlk17 22:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

FAQ

I removed the whole section from the Muhammed FAQ, there were objections to it before he added it. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of policy, don't we assume that everyone and anyone who can read English is our userbase? -MasonicDevice (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it should have never been added to start with, he just whacked it in after asking a few leading questions. We have NO idea who are main readers of the article (we can guess) so to stick that in an FAQ and use it as the basis for other inferences is out of order. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of policy, don't we assume that everyone and anyone who can read English is our userbase? -MasonicDevice (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed, did you see the earlier version? "people might end up here because of anti-islam polemical on the web" yeah, that was a NPOV! --Fredrick day (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment blocks

{{Interrupted}} helps readability when other editors interweave comments. Sometimes the interjecting editors even get the point.

{{Interrupted|MasonicDevice}}

— MasonicDevice — continues after insertion below

/ edg ☺ ☭ 20:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad

I am not following the other editor's comment. I just commented on one of his edits and kind of agreed with him. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment in Talk:Muhammad/images

I hope you don't mind my reverting your comment. It seems like something you would have regretted in an hour or so. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. I was reverting it myself. It's a bit difficult to AGF and stay OT with that one. All he wants to talk about is how I "censored" him. As if...-MasonicDevice (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Best to disengage. I see both sides getting frustrated. I'm not Wikipedia's most tactful editor, but I'm cringing every time someone says Islamic tradition is "irrelevant". I know what is meant by this, but it's so easy to see how the certain parties will find that incredibly insulting. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I wish there were a better way to say it. The best I've been able to think up is "Irrelevant to this project operating under the rules set out in WP:LOP". But that's a mouthfull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasonicDevice (talk • contribs) 18:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Better phrased as an affirmative: say these images are relevant to the article. The FAQ section Aren't the images false? has some reasons why. People immersed in this tradition probably find Islam relevant to everything (and why wouldn't it be?). You don't want to butt heads against that. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't exactly the complaint he was raising, though. His complaint was more, "Due to Islamic tradition, law, and scholarship why the images are relevant to this article?" The best affirmative answer I can come up to that is: "WP has its own critera for determination of relevance and inclusion into articles." Of course, that has the implication that WP's policies superseed other rulesets, so it's not much better than saying, "Your rules don't apply here," except that it's less confrontational. -MasonicDevice (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"WP has its own criteria for determination of relevance and inclusion into articles" is a very good way to put it. I wasn't really concerned about anyone one particular comment or argument; just how roughly people sometimes talk to each other in this discussion. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Nuke them from orbit its the only way to be sure!" No problem. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with archiving it, that would be a fine compromise. You can do it, or I'd be happy to as well, let me know.—Chowbok ☠ 19:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)