Do you have an e-mail address? I need to speak with you in private. Kurdo777 (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you put it on my talk page? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please study our WP:RS policy on what is an acceptable source. Self-publishing weblogs/websites with no editorial oversight such as Iranian.com or publishing-houses' promotional materials better known as Blurbs/forwards etc, can not be used as a source on Wikipedia. This is formal warning. Kurdo777 (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdo777, what specific part of WP:RS are you referring to? The webpage http://us.macmillan.com/author/darioushbayandor is a page which is published by a scholarly book publishing house, and the page is their official author biography of Darioush Bayandor. There is editorial oversight for this page, and it is reliable. None of the text on that page is remotely contentious, not at all likely to be challenged. On what basis do you issue a formal warning? Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Binkster. As for Iranian.com, could you (Kurdo) provide some admin decision on the unreliability of Iranian.com? The Wikipedia article makes it sound pretty good. But I don't see anything about what "editorial oversight" it has or has not. The interviewer of Darioush Bayandor sounds at least plausibly notable:

Fariba Amini holds a BA from George Mason University in Sociology, an MA in history form the Sorbonne and a cerfiticate in Business administration from Georgetown University. She has been active on Human Rights issues and was co-founder of the Alliance for Defense of Human Rights in Iran.

She is currently writing her father's biography who was the mayor of Tehran and personal attorney of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh. she is the President of Foundation for Educational Progress, a non-profit organization which collects and sends educational materials to Afghanistan and other Farsi speaking countries. She lives in the suburb of Washington, DC.

I Kurdo has reverted again. Should we try and get a 3rd opinion? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like what you've written recently, I'm pretty sure you will be challenged on use of blogs, so be prepared.Cronos1 (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Karim Sadjadpour, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Karim_Sadjadpour.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I have made enough changes and additions to original material (I took from Sadjadpour's page at Carnegie Endowment not from SourceWatch) to avoid any copyright violation. (copied from Sadjadpour's Talk page) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BoogaLouie has violated Wikipedia's copy-right polices on many occasions, by dumping large chunks of texts taken from copy-righted books, into various articles. He currently hosts several of these quote-farms on his sub-page or sub-pages of discussions pages, which are also a part of Wikipedia and governed by Wikipedia rules. An admin should look into these pages, which are being used essentially as a blog/POV-fork full of copyrighted text. ( ie[1] ) Kurdo777 (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Have not "dumping large chunks of texts taken from copy-righted books" or "violated Wikipedia's copy-right polices on many occasions". The alleged "quote-farms on his sub-page or sub-pages ... essentially as a blog/POV-fork" such as this, are not acessable to the public but were created for wikipedia editors to help sort out issues in the highly contentious 1953 Iranian coup d'état article. They are clearly distinguishable from wikipedia articles. -BoogaLouie (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've just gotten around to looking at the bot-taggings after the weekend and there are some issues. While Karim Sadjadpour is not a word-for-word copy of the source (and sourcewatch just copied from the same one which is why it was mentioned), it is largely the same in terms of structure and language and so is an unusable close paraphrase and I have blanked it as being a copyright problem. It can be rewritten or stubbed on the temporary page which is linked from the template and will be evaluated by an admin in about a week. I should also note that simply quoting the phrasing from the copyrighted source isn't an acceptable solution either, because it can be rewritten in your own words which would be free from copyright restrictions and so it needs to be.

With regards to the "large chunks of texts" mentioned by Kurdo777, while there are some exceptions made for the short-term hosting of copyrighted material (for purposes of cleaning an article of copyright problems or salvaging non-creative material) pages such as Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Mosaddeq domestic issues are not an acceptable use, and will need to be replaced with a list of links to the sources or it will be blanked or deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the quotes were typed by hand as most of them don't appear any other place on the internet.

Have tried to de-copyright infringe the Karim Sadjadpour article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite frank it doesn't matter that the quotes don't appear any other place on the internet, the point is that they violate policy by being here and you could always set up a personal website to host them where all you'd have to worry about is fair use and not Wikipedia's stricter requirements. Are there more of these quote/source pages than Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Communism sources, Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Mosaddeq domestic issues and Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Mosaddeq's behavior sources? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the lot. I was hoping the situation at the 1953 Iranian coup article had changed and they would be useful for editing, but if they violate regulations I won't put up a fuss about their deletion. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC) (I do have this page as a subpage of my own talk page. I hope that doesn't violate policy). --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll go ahead and blank them in case anyone wants to copy the information out of the page history in the next week or so. And there's nothing wrong with keeping a copy of an article in your userspace as a sandbox to work on possible improvements. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this pop up on my watchlist. I should say that -I- was the first one to make a page like that (link), and I totally disagree that it's against policy. There was a vast failure to agree on reality between several posters on the Iranian coup page - as in, people were saying "Book X supports my position." I actually bothered to go and read the same books and found this to be incorrect. Merely saying that didn't help, so I copied those pages directly for use as possible sources. This -still- didn't matter as Kurdo and others continued to insist that despite what the sources said - right there - they actually said something else. I eventually gave up and stopped paying attention. However, if active debate is still going on in the talk page, I believe these resources are useful to give a baseline of reality to the discussions. I can't attest to BoogaLouie's additions and whether they were "POV" or not, but I went in to reading the books with an open mind, and I can say for myself that the communism sources page was not in any way meant as "blog" or "POV-pushing," but rather to show the reality of the source and make it harder to dance around it. SnowFire (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my take on it, Snowfire. The sources were assembled for the purpose of improving the article in the same way that a userspace sandbox would be. I see no reason to blank the pages. Binksternet (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no opinion on the POV/blog comment, but those pages are large chunks of copyrighted content which is against policy to leave sitting around indefinitely anywhere, userspace or otherwise, regardless of their purpose. As I said above, a personal webpage could easily be created elsewhere for the content which wouldn't be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content policies. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Snowfire and Binkster for chiming in. Here are some personal webpages which were easily created elsewhere:

Snowfire's original page (plus some additions)

• 1953 Iranian coup d'état - Communism issue - sources

A couple of other pages I created:

• 1953 Iranian coup d'état - issue of Moseddeq’s domestic support - sources
• 1953 Iranian coup d'état - issue of Mosaddeq's behavior - sources --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Darioush_Bayandor#Favorable_review you say that you found a review by Steven Simon in the publication Survival. How did you find that? Is it online? I would like to quote from the review.

Also, did you see that the Nobel Peace Prize library acquired the Bayandor book in June 2010? I wonder if there is any significance in this... Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this reversion of your work at Iranian Revolution, Kurdo777 removed some views you added to the lead section. Per WP:LEAD, those views should be present in the article body and summarized in the lead section, not placed in the lead section alone. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdo777 (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an opinion regarding Donald Wilber as a reliable source, please weigh in at User talk:Kurdo777#Removal of Wilber. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, i havent used wikipedia in a while therefore i made a mistake in the code resulting in your name appearing instead of mine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ass711 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justus Weiner (2nd nomination). Jaque Hammer (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't keep that page on my watchlist but somehow someone is changing "muslim" to "alawite".. I saw you commented on this before, please keep an eye--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BoogaLouie, your reply to Binksternet regarding working on the lead I thought was understandable. I don't have an opinion on the content dispute, though I am reading through the discussion and find it quite interesting. What do you think, do you and the other involved editors intend to keep working on the paragraph of the lead in question? Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm glad you find it interesting, and I definately intend to keep on working on the article, but I want to do this the wikipedia way so right now I'm inclined to work on the main body of the article before working on the lede. Specifically adding information on the military involvement in the coup to the The coup and CIA records and Execution of Operation Ajax section. (You may not "have an opinion on the content dispute" but see if you don't think that the section is surprisuing short on what happened during the coup. Lots about bribes and thugs and restoring the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, but what exactly happened??? All there is "After a short exile in Italy, the CIA completed the coup against Mossadegh and returned the Shah to Iran.") --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do intend to read the discussion and hopefully be able to contribute something. The lede should be rewritten at some point, no doubt. I'll see you around, Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boogie, are you allowed to close the previous RfC you put up? I think its better if only one (the most recent one) is displayed on the RfC noticeboard page. Dunno if you agree... LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Suggestion) change:

They also gave agents $50,000 to created a "black" (fake) Tudeh mob...

to:

The CIA provided $50,000 to fund a "black" (fake) Tudeh mob...

or something similar? Is that factually true? Collect wants to make that statement explicitly, right? Heh, I'm learning a lot about the coup. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will make changes. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you changed "heavily fortified" to defended (so: "...took place at Mosaddeq's home, which though defended by loyalist troops and three tanks, was overwhelmed...") how would you feel? I know you are trying hard here and I respect that a lot, sorry I keep coming here and suggesting you (only) compromise - I'll try to work on Collect and Kurdos777 as well. The general gist of your proposed changes, in terms of more detail of the actual coup, is something I think other editors have stated is important (and I'd agree), so if some of the smaller objections can be dismissed (regardless of whether you are right or not), maybe the larger picture can be addressed. Screw the lede; editors opposed to you can always go "that's not what the main body says" right now and so I think it distracts from your main points. Thanks for your work on this, really! LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too appreciate your efforts, but step back from your dispute resolution work and look at what the sources say:

• "Mosaddeq's home, which had been heavily fortified by loyalist troops ... Mosaddeq's home, which was defended by pro-Mosaddeq army units backed by three tanks." (Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran, Ed. by Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne, Syracuse University Press, 2004, p.256)
• "after a three-hour battle with three tanks protecting Mosaddeq's home and the main radio station" ... (Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, 1982, p.280)
• " the house [of premier Mosaddeq]. Inside, loyal soldiers built fortifications and prepared for battle. They were armed with rifles, machine guns, and Sherman tanks mounted with 75-millimeter cannons." (All the Shah's men By Stephen Kinzer],(p.182-3, 5)*

That's not heavily fortified??? I just think this is a bit absurd. ... but I'll do it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I keep suggesting changes for you to make in the hope that we can the move on past a specific objection and get the bulk of what you propose in...but that obviously ain't happening. Your citations all seem good, and I haven't seen any that dispute them. I do like Graeme's point, and think it would be even better if we could mention that as the possibility of a coup became apparent, preparations were made at Mosaddeq's house - dunno if the time frame for that was sometime around the 15th and could be put in that section. I assume if Mosaddegh had been warned of the plot I assume he then organized resistance accordingly. You are being a trooper, CHEERS to you! LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your civility on that talk page has been exemplary... LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend, thank you for your 2 messages on my talk page of some 6 weeks ago. Due to a heavy workload, traveling schedule and other reasons, I drop in on WIKIPEDIA rarely these days. Quite frankly, the fact that entirely ignorant kids are busy leaving their embarrassingly poor mark on this platform, by meddling with historically well founded and in general even well VERIFIED posts, makes me give up on contributing. Obviously a blatant lack of supervision and control mechanisms in place, makes it easy for these ignorami to meddle with well sourced information and render hours of diligent work futile. Why waste my precious time on correcting... or contributing pertinently. I trust you and other staunchly dedicated authors will at least succeed in holding all too excessive damage in bay. Good luck to you, you are of course welcome to resort to me if you should think I could be of help in any way.

Pantherarosa (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word apartheid to describe the government of Bahrain is now so frequent and coming form people of such stature [2] that I believe it ought to be a free-standing page. Will you have a look at it if I put it up?I.Casaubon (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Feel free to edit.Bahrain and the apartheid analogy.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regarding the Ibn Ishaq article about the user wiqi55--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inviting everyone who contributed to the previous discussion to weigh in (again) at Talk:Luther (disambiguation). Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Falkland Islands. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You moved Takfir wal-Hijra to Jama'at al-Muslimin.

I'd like to read the discussion that preceded this renaming. Could you please tell me where to look for it?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was none. Since Jama'at al-Muslimin was crushed and Shukri Mustafa executed, I thought there was enough of a distinction between Jama'at al-Muslimin and any succeeding groups calling themselves Takfir wal-Hijra to have separate articles (if for no other reason than Jama'at al-Muslimin did not call themselves Takfir wal-Hijra). I originally only created a redirect from Takfir wal-Hijra to Jama'at al-Muslimin, but then I found a lot of sources on Takfir wal-Hijra from old versions of the article, so I created a separate article. Do you object to the dividing of the article? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Boogie, what's up? I took a break since there is no point getting frustrated (and I'm not anymore). I am going to avoid conflict and entrenched parties tho... Good luck with the Coup article, I'm not sure what's been going on since I last checked, but it looked grim. It was obviously to me you were trying to make the article more objective, readable, organized and just generally of higher-quality. Heh, no good deed goes unpunished. I'll try keep an eye on what you are doing and hopefully be able add stuff - like I said, you do good work. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you LoveU, I've been sort of taking the summer off regarding the coup article as it's a bit .... frustrating, but will be back to work in the fall. My idea is to do a bunch of RfC on the major problems of the article and if (when) no agreement is forthcoming take it to the next level of dispute resolution. I'll keep you in mind for updates on the dispute. All the best. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm usually interested in aviation accident articles, and one that I wanted to work on for quite some time is Iran Air Flight 655. I might be calling on you for help on that one...do you know Farsi? LoveUxoxo (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be apprised of WP:EW and the ramifications thereof. You appear to be engaged in an edit war on the article Koch Industries. It is suggested that you self-revert your last revert which reinserted material currently being discussed at WP:RS/N. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Veterans Day. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Shahid Modarres missile base explosion. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Bidganeh explosion. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Bidganeh explosion - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Shashwat986 → talk 22:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BoogaLouie, you recently removed a deletion tag from Shahid Modarres missile base explosion. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock}} --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting blocking admin. Bear with me. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a mistake was made in blocking the IP. Hopefully this will get cleared up quickly. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the autoblock. Let's see if this works. Daniel Case (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Sadat era! I created a similar article in the Dutch Wiki, last July. Your article looks really sophisticated, I must say, with an impressive list of references. I haven't yet read your article, nor compared it with mine; but it's good for the Wiki-readers, that they now have two articles to read and, if they wish, compare. (Provided they master both languages...)--Corriebert (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The three modern Egyptian presidents all had such long "reigns" and such power to put their stamp on Egypt, it seemed natural for a historical period. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gandzasar monastery. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nazareth. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Social Mobility in the United States, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.localcolorarts.com/social_mobility/encyclopedia.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Income inequality in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to David Brooks

Socio-economic mobility in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to David Brooks

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georgia (country). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Social mobility (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to David Brooks

Socio-economic mobility in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CBO

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Islamism is a concocted term by various Orientalists, neo cons and Israelis. Islamists on the other hand which started out as a derogatory term has now changed and become normative for describing Islamic activists esp in Arab spring revolutions in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. This redirection to Islamism should be stopped and islamist should have its own page along with links to the islamic activists and movements involved in the Arab spring revolutions. I request a revote on the islamist to islamism redirect. They are two separate terms with significantly different meanings. Wholetruth123 (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Thomas Geoghegan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polling (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Berlin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may not the best person to ask. Despite the number of images I've created, I don't know much about image policy, I simply do by example. That said, it would seem that since the uploaders themselves probably don't have rights to the image they can't release it under the Creative Commons themselves. However, if you look at another schools logo, it seems that the image may be appropriately used with a non-free use rationale: Template:Non-free logo. Hyacinth (talk) 07:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Texas Revolution. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A user has expressed concerns that your vote on the above RfC on Talk:Sri Lanka is not genuine. I would appreciate if you could make some clarification to break the current deadlock as the user firmly stands by his opinion. Astronomyinertia (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:CEO pay v average slub.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Input would be appreciated at an RfC. I randomly selected you from the History section of the RfC bot notification list. Please disregard this request if you are too busy or not interested. --Noleander (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of WikiProject Sri Lanka and all Sri Lankan users and as a participant of this discussion I would like to apologise to you for the negative and uncivil comments and responses you received in taking your time to respond to our Rfc. I hope the following events did not discourage you from participating in Rfcs and Sri Lanka related topics in the future. Thank you.--Blackknight12 (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Northern Ireland. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:September 11 attacks. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Executive pay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin Murphy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Sri Lanka Demographics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Distributor108 (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Balochistan conflict. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Ludwig von Mises Institute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hard money (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United States war crimes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two particular accounts are camping out on this article, imo, to prevent anything about what it actually does from making it into the article. The organisation's primary purpose is to draft model legislation, yet they've both reverted any mention of the nature of the model bills that Alec has drafted, at every opportunity. As an editor who showed up from COIN commented, the article is mostly a collection of data, with barely anything of substance from reliable sources present in the article at all. I'd invite you to read carefully through the talk page, and certainly to post your concerns there. That's a necessary step in the dispute resolution process. Based on my own experience with the one editor, in particular, the most prolific reverter of the two camped out there, I'm not sanguine as to the likely result, but you certainly need to start there, and perhaps you'll meet with some attempt at cooperation and consensus-editing that I didn't. I do think the preponderance of opinion among recent editors is opposed to the actions of these two, but that won't do any good at all without robust participation on the talk page. Simply complaining in edit summaries won't help change the situation in any way. --OhioStandard (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)  page temporarily watchlisted[reply]

Agreed. Agreed about the two accounts. Agreed about the necessity of talk page discussion. I was in a hurry and outraged by the censorship. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; I do that, too. Good on you for making up for it with your recent posts to the talk page, though: You got things moving again. Besides this reply, I also wanted to add a minor disclosure and technical note, too: I've taken the liberty of calling out your text of your original addition to the article, on the talk page, by using a subtly different background color to distinguish it. You should certainly revert that if you dislike it at all. In a separate edit, I also added a corresponding ("local") references section after your proposed text, via {{|Reflist|local=yes}} so (1) the refs included in your sample text actually show up beneath your post, and (2) those same refs won't "bleed" or "cross over" into any "local reference" sections that may exist or may be created elsewhere on the page. Best, --OhioStandard (talk)

Right then: I need to disclose that I've taken an additional liberty with your previously-added talk page text; you can see the effect here. I modified your original formatting considerably, so my ADD brain could follow your argument more easily, and I changed the wording in a few minor ways to explicitly state what was being discussed, for the same reason. I also changed what I presume was a mistaken mention of Reuters as being the article containing the sentence, "No 'lobbying' was taking place" to Bloomberg BusinessWeek. Feel free to revert any or all changes: I realise my edit is presumptuous, of course, regardless of the good intention that motivated it. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. (I wanted to make bullet points out of Binksternet's post about all the article on ALEC and lobbying.) Of course I don't want to give you carte blanche to amend my posts but wikpedia is all about improvement! BoogaLouie (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great minds think alike, as they say. I also wanted break Binksternet's sources out into individual bullet points; perhaps I'll ask him to do so. I'm disappointed that you won't give me carte blanche, though. ;-) Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info on ALEC for editing if someone is able: ||Three States Specifically Exempt ALEC from Lobbyist Laws|| South Carolina^[1][2], Indiana, and Colorado have specifically exempted ALEC from their lobbying ethics laws.^[3]

References

Indiana: reference http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2012/05/08/index.html for background explanation. "Here is the Indiana General Assembly page for HB 1001-2010. Here are the Senate Rules Committee amendments. See p. 4, lines 26-36. The exemptions are now codified at IC 2-7-1-10." http://www.in.gov//apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2010&request=getBill&docno=1001 and http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2010/PDF/SCRP/AM100104.001.pdf

Colorado: http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl2010a/sl_184.htm (section 1c) and others referenced here http://www.gsmlaborcouncil.org/story/alec-gets-break-state-lobbying-laws

Separate info on from initial Indiana post on same blog re prisons: Law - NPR investigation of ALEC, "the birthplace of a thousand pieces of legislation introduced in statehouses across the county" http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2010/10/law_npr_investi.html Frank212202 (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Christian sentiment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have summarized the consensus and edited the article Anti-Christian Sentiment accordingly. Please see that it meets your approval. Veritycheck (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sino-Indian War. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Orleigh Court. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not insert the libelous opinion of certain right-wingers into the lead of Hooman Majd, essentially labeling him an Iranian agent, as this is a clear violation of WP:BLP. Homan Majd is an independent respected commentator who regularly appears on CNN and other Amercian networks. If you continue to do this, I will notify Hooman Majd himself, to contact Wikipedia office with a complaint. Kurdo777 (talk)

If you think the nationalpost.com doesn't qualifies as a reliable source, why not just explain your case and not accuse others of libel? Where is there some precident in wikipedia disqualifiying its use?

And since when is adding "He has been described as a “sometimes sympathetic communicator” of the Iranian government's positions," with a citation (<ref name="tweet">{{Cite news |first=Steven |last=Edwards |title=Iranian-American author claims hackers behind offensive tweet about Nazanin Afshin-Jam |url=http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/20/iranian-american-author-claims-hackers-behind-offensive-tweet-about-nazanin-afshin-jam/</ref> {{reflist}}Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).)

"libelous"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what's with the "reminder"? Are you pretending to be an admin? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to be an admin, to give you a reminder about the core Wikipedia polices you're suppose to know and follow. This was not the first time you had used subjective cherry-picked opinions as mini-quotes (usually negative too) in the lead of a living person's article, which is suppose to be a summary of objective facts. You have been warned, and even blocked once for "WP:BLP violations". So this is not something new. Wikipedia articles, especially the lead sections, are not a place for editorializing, I've been telling you this for years. I hope you saw how the two uninvolved editors who responded to the BLP alert, one of whom is an administrator, raised similar concerns about the edits, and that in future, you would be more careful with sources when it comes to BLPs, and refrain from editorializing/WP:COATing on such articles. Thank you. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is your opinion they are cherry picked and subjective. As I said on the ,

if others feel the need I'm happy to add something like "according to the pro-Israeli National Post newspaper." I would have searched for the quote in the original source but I'm at work and time was short. I'm more than happy to change the wording in the article to "Roland Elliott Brown, writing in the Observer, has called Majd `a high-profile explainer of the Iranian regime to American audiences` and `a sometimes sympathetic communicator of the regime's positions, and an enthusiast only for its most loyal oppositionists`", or something shorter.

Anyway I think there is a very big difference between saying `He has been described as a “sometimes sympathetic communicator” of the Iranian government's positions` (my wording), and "essentially calling him an agent of the Iranian regime" (as Kurdo's accuses me).

Why don't I quote what a real admin put on your talk page:

You are playing with words. Unless you are a lawyer, you can't instigate legal action yourself, but implying that you are going to contact the representatives to point out the alleged libel is clearly intended to imply a threat of legal action. If you repeat or carry out the threat to contact the representatives, or make any similar statements, I will block you in accordance with this policy. Don't just keep reverting, discuss. Not also that ISPs do not have to edit under a username. If necessary, I'll protect this page and block who ever needs to be blocked to restore civility Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

see also here. Thank you. :-) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See this is the problem , and the reason why I went to noticeboard right away. Trying to talk to you, always leads to exchanges like this. You assume bad faith, and instead of welcoming the message here which is to be mindful of what sources you use on the biographies of living people whose lives could be affected by your editorializing of their pages using questionable sources like fake interviews (Remember what you did on Messbah's page citing a fake satire as fact that he was "condoning raping prisoners" ) or out-of-context cherry-picked negative soundbites about the subject taken from Fox News-like controversial sources, you shoot the messenger and try to justify yourself no matter what you've done. Apparently, you can never be wrong. Oh and there are no "real" or "unreal" admins, all admins are real, trust me, including the ones who have warned and blocked you numerous times. Jimfbleak's main concern was edit-warring on that page, for which he also warned Bink, and later he clarified to me that I could actually contact the article subjects in such cases, to notify them of the status of their Wikipedia article, which is what I meant to do all along, but my intentions were misunderstood, perhaps due to miscommunication on my part. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume bad faith???? Isn't accusing me of inserting "the libelous opinion of certain right-wingers" an assumption of bad faith??? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well National Post is indeed a right-wing, some would say neo-con, newspaper and/or tabloid, that's a fact. In this case, I was talking about what you're quoting in the lead of a BLP, not you the individual. Why do you take everything personal? When it comes to sources on BLPs, you tend to shoot first, and then ask questions. To avoid such controversies, all you have to do, is to hold yourself to a higher standard when it comes to sources. Just because you found something unflattering on Google News about someone you may not like, doesn't mean it merits inclusion on that person's Wikipedia bio. That's all I am saying. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More of your good faith assumption? "out-of-context cherry-picked negative soundbites", etc.

Why don't I repeat my question:

If you thought the nationalpost.com didn't qualifies as a reliable source, why didn't you explain why on the talk page rather than accusing others of libel? Some sources are banned from wikipedia. Is nationalpost.com one of them? I would not use Fox News or Newsmax as a source, and after reading more about National Post I'd try to avoid using it in the future. It looked like a mainstream newspaper at first glance.

And since when is adding "He has been described as a `sometimes sympathetic communicator` of the Iranian government's positions," with a citation (^[1]) "libelous"? Or even very negative?

And no, I do not remember "citing a fake satire as fact that Mesbah was 'condoning raping prisoners'" or "out-of-context cherry-picked negative soundbites about the subject taken from Fox News-like controversial sources," etc., etc. What I remember is your accusing me of assorted slanders and lies, cherry-pickings, over the last several years. The problems with National Post could have been explained on the talk page.

You had no reason "to go noticeboard right away" and ignore the article talk page where you could have explained your deletes. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I finally addressed your question about citations on Executive pay in the United States. Sorry for tardiness. I seem to be having having difficulty seeing comment notices. ENeville (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, perhaps because of inherent limits in the medium, I think you may be hearing that I'm disputing facts when actually all I'm saying is that they need citations. I think there's less opposition than you think. ENeville (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I merged your content from Band Box Diner (Minneapolis) to Band Box Diner. It looks like we both started articles on the same topic at last Saturday's editing session. :)

I went there and took pictures on Sunday, and ate there as well. Fairly typical diner food, but I can see why it's a neighborhood institution. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is much improved -- especially the photo. I put (Minneapolis) in the title after I (thought) I found a "Band Box Diner" in another location in a google search, though I'll be damned if I can find it now. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pirouz Davani is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirouz Davani 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 high-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 article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. MSJapan (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the 1970s a professor told us how statistics are manipulated to fit an agenda. He said that the government’s statistics will show that income inequality is much less than it actually is and another organization may show inequality is much greater. That’s all I remembered. I investigated this and added the Statistical variations section in January or 2010 to the Income inequality in the United States article. Just recently I looked to see if anyone improved my section but it was gone. Checking the article history, I found that the point I was making was reversed. Someone changed my “Various methods ...result in statistically misleading information” to “Various methods... result in statistically similar information”, which is somewhat of the opposite point. You had deleted the section, saying it was “useless and unclear”, which is true since the point I made was reversed. My original section may have been unclear as well but it was the best I could do. You seem to understand the subject much much better than me. I hope you might be able to improve the article by editing the information I attempted to convey and put it back into the article. Let me know if you can do this or maybe you can forward this to someone who can. I’ll try to rephrase my point but it may not clarify it any better. If the income of the top 20% is 15 times more than the bottom 20% then the top 10% would have to be greater and perhaps around 20 or 30 times more than the bottom 10%. Similarly, if the top and bottom 50% were compared the ratio would be even less. This suggests that the CIA is trying to make the U.S. appear to be a much more equitable than it actually is or that the Census Bureau is trying to show greater inequity. This was the original section I added on 25 January 2010:

Various methods are used to determine income inequality and result in statistically misleading information. For example, the US Census Bureau and the CIA Factbook show about the same 15:1 ratio between top and bottom. However, different methods are used as well as different percentages of the population. One compares top and bottom 20% and the other top and bottom 10%. The methods are obviously different if the ratio resultants are the same. Figures for 2007 are as follows: The Census Bureau states "Share of aggregate income received by households" Lowest 20% = 3.4% of total income and the highest 20% = 49.7%, a ratio of 14.62 to 1. (Reference 1) The CIA Fact Book states "Household income or consumption by percentage share" Lowest 10% = 2.0% of total income and highest 10% = 30.0%, a ratio of 15 to 1. (Reference 2)
(1) www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html The World Factbook] United States, Economy
(2)www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/income_expenditures_poverty_wealth.html The National Data Book 2010] US Census, Table 678: Share of Aggregate Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Households Abject Normality (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to create Page with this title Sunni Sufis and Salafi Jihadism.I have seen your contributions in Salafist jihadism.Can you help in improving this page and on discussion related to Deletion Prod. Shabiha (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, long time no talk. I responded over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunni Sufis and Salafi Jihadism - I feel there is some more discussion more appropriate at the AfD page than the article's talk page. Also, do you know a way we could collect more feedback? It seems that there's only two of us paying attention to this discussion right now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Dear I will request You to not go ahead with Merging it in any other Article.I have done a lot of work in making/developing this Article from various angles.If there is POV that can be easily removed but the topic is really important and wikipedia-a leader in Internet Knowledge base resources should reflect recent changes.Read How it has been discussed. [3]. Shabiha (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I have to agree with Mezzo that the article is one sided. At the very least stories like this http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=39288

should be added: ("Scores of Deobandi leaders and members of Ahle Sunnat wal Jamat (ASWJ, formerly the banned Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan) have been assassinated in Karachi in recent years. Police sources say that the Sunni Tehrik, a Barelvi organization, is behind most of these assassinations.") --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But where would we add it, you know what I mean? The article seems unworkable because most of that material could be merged to about four different articles. Deobandis are Sufis themselves, so how do mutual mafia-like assassinations between them and Barelvis relate to Salafis? I would say just moving the sourced material out and building up existing articles would be better. The only academic scholar who made a point to specifically address Sufi-Salafi relations (that I know of) is Jonathan C. Brown, and it wasn't even the sole topic of the research paper which I have in mind. Like I said, maybe in a few years there will be enough published material for this article, but right now it contains a bunch of unrelated information seemingly to justify its existence. I'm looking forward to seeing the suggested merge. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the preferred solution is moving the sourced material out and building up existing articles --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the AfD was closed with no consensus. The article is an obvious POV fork, though I have a feeling that attempts to perform a proper merger and remove inappropriate content will start an edit war with the article's creator. Do you know what else we could do? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you know more about wikipedia rules and regs than I. Put some tags on it? There seems to be lots of unsourced material. I'm surprised you didn't get more support.

The natural merger for the issued I didn't cover in the Persecution section is something like Deobandi Barlevi conflict. But there are some issues there that I don't know enough about. Some Deobandi seem to be involved in the shrine attacks in Pakistan. If Deobandi are sufi or have significant numbers of sufi members in good standing, are those sufis ones that oppose shrines for sufi saints? Or paying homage to saints? Praying to saints for intercession (Tawassul)? Or do they have no problem with the shrines and are at odds with Deobandi-school Lashkar-i-Jhangvi Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) even in the LJ SSP goals, never mind means? I remember reading once that the sophisticates at the Darul Uloom Deoband looked askance at the (poorly educated) Deobandi mullahs of the 10,000s of Madrasas in Pakistan and the Madrasas teaching Afghan refugees. Is there a doctrinal split? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now you came to right questions.The Deobandis are Indian wahabis as the articles states,they don't celebrate Mawlid,a festival approved by all Islamic countries except by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.Deoband has official fatwa against it.Their organizations have killed Muslims celebrating it.

• You will not find a single prominent Deobandi scholar/Member celebrating Urs birth or death anniversary of Sufi Saint.
• You will not find them building tomb and going there for visit which is most common practice of Sufis in the world.
• Muraqba and other practices are Biddah to them.
• You will not find them doing Tawassul or intercession.
• Majority of South Asian Muslims accepts and entered in to all major Sufi silsilas like Qadiri Chishti,Naqshbandi,Soharwardy.They add one of the title into their names and visit Khanqah a Sufi centre but Deobandis are not involved in these things.They use false claims of being Sufis,just to defraud rest of the world,to gain advantage and to strengthen their own ideology.They invites Wahabi Imams of Saudi Arabia into their Mosques to lead prayers ,they don't oppose Wahabism rather receives regular funds from them for their institutions.Wahabism don't oppose them any where in the world.Their organizations along with Salafi jehadis are waging war against Sufi institutions in the name of shirk and Biddah.Earlier these Deobandis hide their beliefs and benefited from Sufi powers.The teachings of Muhammad bin Abdul wahab are trust worthy to all Deobandis.Their Tablighi Jamaat hide its faith to get maximum benefit from Muslim masses.In Afghanistan and Pakistan they have joined Taliban,Al Qaida,Lashkar etc to kill Sufi symbols.You will never find a Deobandi voice opposing attacks against Sufism.They are partner of Salafi Jehad against Sufism.Read , Deobandi Wahabism,imposing foreign ideology [4] Shia;s view Takfiri Deobandi.Thanks.You are welcome to help me in this regard at Sufi Salafi relations. Shabiha (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shabiha, what you're saying here is beyond ridiculous.

Deobandis are not Wahhabis, as confirmed on the article. I don't know why you would claim otherwise.

Deobandis are traditionally adherents to the Naqshbandi order, in addition to others, as confirmed on the article. Why would you even claim otherwise? It makes no sense.

A large number of Salafi Jihadists make takfir, or excommunicate, Deobandis.

All of this is confirmed on the articles in question.

BoogaLouie, I'm sorry that our convo was interrupted. If you hadn't noticed, Shabiha is engaging in a number of controversial edits and comments across multiple articles, and this is one of them. I think this problem needs to be solved before I can give your questions a more cogent response, unfortunately. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some time kindly assist me in neutralizing and removing blatant POV content from Salafi , Wahabi Articles.There I found several non neutral ,unverefiable, highly biased partisan sources praising the movements.Some were forums and some were dead links.The Articles are there since many years supporting un discussed POV.I have found you great objective editor who has really spend his much time in solving problems on wikipedia.Your inputs on talk pages may help in keeping these articles neutral. Shabiha (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flattered by your comments but already have numerous articles I've been meaning to get back to to edit. If you have a RfC or something like that about non neutral, unverifiable, highly biased partisan sources in these articles, leave a message on my page. I know it's very difficult and time consuming to try and make edits that clash with partisans of a point of view. BoogaLouie (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]