User talk:Thestick/Archive

RE: Your recent AMA request

I've looked into the article and agree the current wording of the contested section does not sound particularly NPOV. I have no experience or background in Islamic theology or the political affairs of Jerusalem, but I do have some background in the WP:DR process, which I aquired over the summer in a long term campaign I ran against two openly biased editors. Basically, for advocacy to work, all editors must be able to assume good faith on the part of all participants in a conflict. If you think this is the case, then I can help you articulate your arguments to them and also advise your responses to their queries. Everyone must be committed to working together to resolve whatever POV issues are at stake. This is how the process would work ideally. If you think you can assume good faith on the part of the people whose edits you have been contesting, then the AMA process should work and I would be willing to take your case. If on the other hand the problem has more to do with the personal behavior of any editors who are entirely unwilling or unable to work with others, then I can tell you that the AMA process will not work. If the problem has more to do with personal conduct than with a content issue and seems unsolvable in any other way I will recommend that parties most in accord with WP policies issue Requests for Comment on any suspect users.

If you decide to take me on as your advocate I may be able to communicate with you once or twice a day, at most. I will not be able to communicate Sunday. You can send me an email or communicate with me via my talk page. Best Regards, Amerique 02:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking me on as your advocate. If I may ask a question for my own information, where does the asumption or assertion that this site is "the third holiest" come from? The basis for this claim does not seem to be mentioned in the rest of the article text, and as I don't see the basis for it I don't see the reason for trying to assert that it's not.

Also, removing the section without agreement among collaborators may have been premature. In event the section is put up again, I suggest posting a straw poll at WP:POLLS or an article content Request for Comment at WP:RFC to see where community support lies on the issue, rather than try to revert it again. I think you were acting with good intentions for the project, but it is important not to be seen as acting unilaterally with regards to a content dispute.--Amerique 17:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Thestick, your edit was reverted. Please do not revert in return. I've developed a user page for discussing the issue here: User:Amerique/AMA. On your call, I will try to contact Amoruso and Chesdovi and request them to post their accounts of the issue there, or attempt to address the issue on article's talk page.--Amerique 21:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

My email

Dear Thestick. Thanks for you comments at my talk page. I will setup my email soon. I am currently preparing a reply to the discussion page of al-Aqsa mosque [1]. Please allow me sometime. Thanks Almaqdisi 20:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Third holiest site Afd

Hello thestick, I agree that the sourcing on some of the paragraphs needs to be refined, but it doesn't seem to me that the premise of the page is insufficiently sourced to justify deletion. Remember that a page's violation of a policy is usually cause for cleanup, and not deletion. A list may well be in order in addition to this page, but I don't see why it cannot become a neutral and well sourced representation of the plurality of thought in this regard within the diverse Islamic world. Let me know what you think, Tewfik^Talk 20:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If I may butt in here, the problem is not insufficient sourcing, but unreliable sourcing. There are no lack of references here, only a lack of authoritative or reliable ones. Not only that, but Chesdovi's recent edits more clearly render the article a transparent hit piece against the Al Asqa mosque in particular. With all due respect, there is no way such an obvious hack job can at all be justified under WP:V. Please see also WP:NOT, with particular attention to items 1.4, 1.5, and 1.8. That WP is not censored does not mean it can be used as a vehicle to spread unreliable (mis)information. Regards,--Amerique ^dialectics 23:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

@Tewfik,Im sorry to dissapoint u but theres no "plurality" on this topic in islam. Its just a rather pathetic attempt to downplay muslim importance of the temple mount, By promoting the Hala sultan mosque to 'third holiest site in Islam.' The holiness of muslim sites is measured by the worth of a prayer offered there. for instance a prayer in Mecca mosque is equal to 500000 'ordinary' prayers, in Medina 100000, in Jerusalem so many...

The Hala sultan mosque is not even mentioned in any of these listings. I suspect this is well known to you or the writer of the -holy status in islam- author, but as i said this just a politically motivated writing. by kfeto

Woops, I didn't realize I had voted before. Thanks. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

not dead links

sometimes sources don't have web pages for access, it's ok. Amoruso 11:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Image:Holygraph.png

As informative as your graph is it is borderline for disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I would recommend that you remove the image from the article and make the graph a bit more serious (ie: like removing the "this article" wording... which definitely corresponds to the disruption). (→Netscott) 15:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I've removed it, I'll update it with a more serious tone. thestick 15:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll want to include who says what about the value of the prayers in the graph as well (establish the authority of the numbers found therein). (→Netscott) 15:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats already mentioned in the introduction of the article, is it still needed? thestick 15:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

True but it is possible that your graph could be used in other articles, think globally. (→Netscott) 15:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The axes need labeling. One axis should be labeled with the value of a prayer and the other should be "in corresponding mosque (according to Hadith)" or something to that effect. (→Netscott) 15:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've done the best I can with MS Paint, what do you think of it now? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/65/Holygraph.png . thestick 16:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That's better... I suppose the wording would be long to say, "That equivalent value in number of prayers anywhere else for one prayer in the corresponding sites (or mosques) acorrding to Hadith". (→Netscott) 16:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey thats a nice image - Mlaheji 10:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Re write of Al Aqsa Mosque

You should consult this with user:Chesdovi and user:Beit Or. Personally, my concerns are with keeping the Twain's quote, removing the word "congregation" that it's not used in English and keeping the modern israeli period to something that reflects Jewish thought as well. Amoruso 12:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with it is that it's not referred to as that in english anywhere and we have myriad of web-sites and book that refer to it as Al Aqsa Mosque. It also says "commonly referred to" in the article. Therefore, it's confusing. Amoruso 12:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes.. and I think that the compound should be mentioned but the article focused on that building, while compound issues dealt in the temple mount article. Amoruso 13:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind discussion of it, I only want the article to make sense and to fit other mentions of the mosque in english in general. Amoruso 13:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I was only concerned about the first three entries. Thanks for the message, peace. --Striver 18:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

237th holiest user talk page

Call me what you like Thestick, but as far as I'm concerned you should be diagnosed with False consensus effect. Chesdovi 15:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Judaism

I just followed the link given which states: The Truth About the Talmud is copyrighted material excerpted from Michael A. Hoffman's book, "Judaism's Strange Gods" which was published in the year 2000 - Unauthorized duplication is strictly forbidden. Btw, this addition was added by User:Benyehuda on its own page on 11 March 07 and was subsequently deleted by User:Newyorkbrad. The next day exactly the same was added by User:Thestick. I am convinced User:Thestick was trying to add offensive material under a different username. I asked User:Newyorkbrad if any action should be taken (if there was enough evidence) against this sock-puppetry. I have not yet had a reply. Chesdovi 12:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed explanation. Fair enough and happy editing Chesdovi. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What...The...Hell? thestick 13:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I created that section on march 10th, nice distortion of the facts chesdovi . Also I think citing Hoffman's article is fair use, it was not a 'reproduction' and was written in 3rd person. thestick 13:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Try to source it and change the wording. That would sort out the issue. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I sourced with a link to Hoffman's page too, also I didnt write about racism in the talmud , I wrote about the verses considered by michael hoffman as racist/hate literature. Any suggestions? thestick 13:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Try to rewrite it and discuss it at the article talk page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You will have to try a more reliable source than a Holocaust denier and conspiracy theorist. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

hala sultan tekke

Hi, thestick Im having discussion with a person over a page on wiki i'd like you to take a look at. since im not used to wiki i'd like you to mediate if you would have the time. I've made changes to the page, explained and justified these changes , yet this user persists in undoing them whithout any real justification in my view. the page is Hala Sultan Tekke

Pic

Replied there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Eid Mubarak! Wishing you and your family a blessed Eid.

Your friendly neighborhood Muslim.

If you object to the above message, please remove it, accept my apologies and notify me on my talk page.

Edit warring

I have blocked you for 12 hours (as well as Prester John and Sennen goroshi) due to edit warring on Jihad Watch. I urge you to please not edit war, as it generally only makes disputes worse. krimpet✽ 21:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

uh huh thestick (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Jihad Watch

hi. I was happy to see your helpful contribution on the Jihad Watch article, I think we share the opinion about that site. Unfortunately another user is reverting the article, but maybe you can join in the discussion or something to help everyone come to an agreeable conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jihad_Watch&action=history

thanks Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Userpage

No problem, I think I actually stole it from someone else. Khoikhoi 23:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jihad Watch, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Yahel Guhan 06:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dome of the Rock

Please don’t remove sourced material. If there is a problem, please discuss it. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Your note on Jay's page

What would happen is that he would revert it, and then so would several other people in succession. I don't see what the point of the question was, given that that is an obvious and predictable response; please try and avoid the appearance of saying things just to rile people up. If you can in fact demonstrate that there are several reliable sources that also express the view you outlined on his talkpage, then take them to the appropriate article talkpage, and the cat will no doubt come out in discussion. Relata refero (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

RR, please do not speculate regarding my possible actions, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I noticed he's an admin and a respectable editor, so I wanted to know what his rationale was (which is why I asked for his comment, instead of finding out the hard way) since he has good experience in discrimination related articles. Personally, I don't want to edit the article. thestick (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you poor innocent. Well, never mind. It wasn't trolling, clearly, so I'm satisfied. Feel free to ask me any questions in future. Happy editing!Relata refero (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your question, the Category:Antisemitism is for articles that discuss antisemitism in some way. Whether or not any particular Wikipedia editor believes the contest was or wasn't "inherently antisemitic" is irrelevant. If the article discusses or raises the issue of antisemitism, then it belongs. If it doesn't do that, then the category does not belong. I hope that helps. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jihad Watch. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 03:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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.

informal mediation on Anti:Muslim sentiment catogory for Jihad Watch: interested?

Hi, as a party to the debate on whether to include or exclude Jihad Watch from Category: Anti-Islam sentiment I am inviting you to place your name on the list of those editors who are seeking MedCab (Mediation Cabal) informal mediation. (The request for formal mediation was rejected.)

The benefits: you get to put your side forward with a neutral party making sure that protocols are followed, also you'll get to learn more about dispute resolution and how to use it and finally if a resolution is not reached then the issue is likely to be accepted for formal mediation and then if necesssary more authorative processes. Here is where to sign on; Editors_willing_to_enter_MedCab_mediation_on_Cat:Anti-Islam_sentiment. Thanks SmithBlue (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that consensus is needed. While you and I might see the inclusion as following policy other editors don't. So we get together and either come to a agreement or find out why policy is not being followed. The further along the dispute resolution process we go the more authorative becomes the power of the mediators/administrators/Arbitration Committee. MedCab is a start. If you want to be included in the mediation please put your name on the list. SmithBlue (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Double standards

Like what? Why do you ask? Yahel Guhan 02:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Islamophobia

Islamophobia is a POV term because it implies that a subject is islamophobic. It isn't always incorrect, but in cases related to Criticism of Islam, it is POV as it is an attempt to dismiss criticism of Islam as racism. I thought I explained this when I opposed your inclusion of the link and the category. Yahel Guhan 02:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is no more POV than "racism" or "antisemitism". Yes, i agree that in some cases the use of Islamophobia is unjustified. But to determine where it is justified and where not depends on reliable sources only - not a user's opinions.Bless sins (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah thestick (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Jihad Watch mediation

Just letting you know that mediation on the in/ex -clusion of Jihad Watch from Cat Anti-Muslim sentiment is now happenning. SmithBlue (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

re

yes I did. Yahel Guhan 00:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)