User talk:DavidYork71/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Blanking 2 Also 3 Image tagging for Image:GRAVELBUMP.gif 4 User Category for Discussion 5 Moving pages 6 Sandbox 7 Sandbox 8 The Barnstar for Distraction 9 York 10 Image copyright problem with Image:GravelNPC.jpg 11 Talk page 12 Recent suppression of travel safety information 13 Opinion 13.1 A,B,C 14 Levy 15 Lewis 16 Anon 17 Content disputes - a suggestion 18 Anti-Islam sentiment 19 How women can be treated in Saudi Arabia 20 That anon 21 Image copyright problem with Image:Gravelpodium.jpg 22 Islam and children 23 Nonsense 24 Unspecified source for Image:GhulanHaider11andFaizMohammed40NUmber2.jpg 25 Possible 4 reverts 26 GA review 27 Re:Islam and slavery 27.1 My thoughts on achieving GA for this article 28 Unspecified source for Image:Arabslaverwomen.jpg 29 Unspecified source for Image:Arabslavers1866.jpg 30 NPOV 31 Islam and slavery 32 consistent tag removals 33 Image copyright problem with Image:Sudanslaves.jpg 34 Re Dear Fayssal 35 Plese reconsider your nomination of Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq 36 Unspecified source for Image:Arabslaverwomen.jpg 37 Unspecified source for Image:Sudanslaves.jpg 38 Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox 39 4 reverts on Islam and slavery? 40 Seen this? 41 A suggestion 42 Aminz reported you for 3RR 43 Murray & Hernstein 44 Blocked

[edit] Blanking

Is one way to archive a talk page- but many advise against it. Maybe try learning how to archive would be a good exercise...SatuSuro 07:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Also

Has any one walked you through the wikipedia intro, or WP:NOT, WP:OR, at all? It would appear that doing such might help you understanding other editors response to some of your recent work. Just because something is bleeding obvious to you that dosnt necessarily make it something that necessarily consistutes specific practice or accepted method in creation of articles in Wikipedia. SatuSuro 07:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:GRAVELBUMP.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:GRAVELBUMP.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Category for Discussion

[edit] Moving pages

If you want to move an article to a different title, use the "move" tab. Copy-blank-paste moves make the article look like you wrote it all on your own, which is both immoral and a violation of the GFDL.

Also, contentious moves should be discussed first. I suggest that virtually any move of a page associated with Islam would be contentious.

And finally, the title Islam and Children doesn't follow our capitalisation convention; It should be Islam and children, if indeed there is consensus for the title.

Hesperian 11:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox

A reminder that the use of a sandbox would be of benefit to yourself, and to wikipedia -multiple on-wiki edits are bit like your pointless category creation - a real waste of time SatuSuro 02:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a barnstar for contributing serial unsolicited (& unreciprocated) peevish comments on a user talk page? DavidYork71 05:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox

A reminder that the use of a sandbox would be of benefit to yourself, and to wikipedia -multiple on-wiki edits are bit like your pointless category creation - a real waste of time SatuSuro 02:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a barnstar for contributing serial unsolicited (& unreciprocated) peevish comments on a user talk page? DavidYork71 05:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

NO, and I would not accept it under any circumstance either - however.

• (1) Asking you to use a sandbox is part of what talk pages are about - other editors or admins alert users to correct procedure if you wish to remain an acceptably reasonably behaved member of wikipedia.

If you think you are indeed the 'free agent' that most of your editing to date has reflected, then you must expect the level of steady unsolicited requests to 'behave', and to continue unabated and increasingly by admins

• (2) If you think messages unsolicited are not wanted while you are a user of wikipedia, I strongly recommend you need to use a blog or similar device off wikipedia.

Talk pages are there for exactly that - the terms of the contract that is implied by becoming a member of wikipedia is that you actually take note of what is put on them

• (3) unreciprocated messages re- correct behaviour simply encourage more - no response - further comments

Fortunately WP:Civility and WP:Wikiquette restrict further comment.

I look forward to your reply on these matters, and am most appreciative of the fact that after about 10 talk messages you have taken the trouble to actually acknowledge that you even received them, thats a start! SatuSuro 07:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Barnstar for Distraction

Serial, peevish, hitherto-unreciprocated, & unsolicited. If I missed anything out there its distracting. I've thought about whether I should feel apologetic about any of my contributions to developing and initiating wiki articles: and my thoughts were 'uh, nup'. When I've been challenged about verifiability I've added references or made excisions. I'll continue to save my work regularly and repeatedly as best to avoid edit conflict and loss of session data problems.DavidYork71 08:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Category FUK - 'uh, nup' - nah get on who on eath do you think are you kidding ? SatuSuro 09:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] York

Some of your edits are judgmental. We should simply report the facts. "Islam recognized slavery" and "regulated it". That's it. Saying: Islam didn't abolish it is criticism as if it was supposed to do so. --Aminz 07:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:Lead the lead should stand alone and touch all the major points in the article. Please study that. --Aminz 07:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:GravelNPC.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GravelNPC.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page

Hi DY71,

We can discuss your edits sentence by sentence, achieve consensus and move on. I am not saying all your edits were not proper, just that there were significant undiscussed changes. Cheers, --Aminz 09:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not required to discuss all significant changes beforehand. Arrow740 09:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Aminz and Arrow take notice. Having all my revisions and additions so indiscriminately reverted - by Aminz, and at other times by Itaqallah - makes me feel like one of those people who knew Stalin in the 1920s and then was airbrushed out of all appearance from the photographic records. DavidYork71 09:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

your insertions are a violation of wikipedia policies. your "drafts" belong on your personal space, not in the article. if you continue to add unencyclopedic material and original research, it will simply be reverted. good day. ITAQALLAH 12:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent suppression of travel safety information

User Merbabu has adopted a consistent policy of expurgating references to murders of 90-odd Australians in Indonesia in recent years from this article. These were widely reported occurrences and have some reference to the subject matter. He has claimed 'original research', and 'unreferenced'.

The same user previously has made abusive commentary in edit summaries, arising from his judgement about my presentation of information from DFAT

I have reintroduced this material with my original reference, in the introductory section. My original references were to other wiki articles, and those reference were removed by MichaelJLowe in this edit [1]

It was also claimed that the intro statement of the nature 'deepening Australian AID commitment to Indonesia in recent years', put by me, was 'unreferenced'. I had thought to tag additional references there was superfluous because the ensuing content of article (in the section 'Australian Aid etc' with many references added by me) clearly provides the foundation for that characterisation. For sake of consensus I now have bracketed a hyperlink from that statement to the 'Australian Aid..' section.

The remarks about travel safety have always been referenced (with reference tag and/or quotes) to the Feb 2007 Indonesia DFAT travel advisory. This remains so. DavidYork71 16:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not once removed the referenced travel advisory. Rather I have removed your original research interpretations of it and your own opinionated connection of it to Australian aid. Also, you opinion that Indonesia should provide aid to Australian farmers.

As I have explained every time, this you still fail to provide one single reference for the connections. Once again, i put it to you that such a connection is your own original research, and that the quotes such as the following have no place in an encyclopedia: Despite Australia's significant unreciprocated contributions of development aid to Indonesia over a lengthy period and foreshadowed into the future, Indonesia remains an unsafe environment for Australians This is your own unproven connections and only the Australian govt's assertion that it is unsafe. We cannot report that "it is unsafe" although you may say "the Australian govt advises it is unsafe because A, B, C, etc". Despite your I have not removed referenced material about AUstralia govt warnings. I will continue to remove any statement as "Indonesia is unsafe for AUstralians." This is typical: [2].

I really don't see what is so difficult about this. I have made a number of suggestions on your now archived talk page. In my opinion you have some fundamental misunderstandings about what a wikipedia article is about. It is not about advancing a position - i've tried to explain this and it is severely frustrating to have to remove the same original research and blatant POV again and again. And I have continually been editing poor writing style. I will now be seeking admins to monitor this issue as it has gone on long enough. Merbabu 06:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a few examples of your edits that have been edited by myself and others - I have removed/edited countless more. After 20 times and yourself making no effort to reply/discuss, i think I am entitled to be just honest and label them rubbish - that is far from 'abusive'...

[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] Merbabu 06:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My comments on your recently archived talk page. Merbabu 07:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that what is missing here is that one of the stated aims of Australian aid is to improve regional stability and reduce terrorism (see: [12]) so we can be sure that there is a connection. The people providing foreign aid (i.e. the people of Australia) do expect to get some specific returns on their expenditure and safety is one of those expected returns.

Actually, there are quite a large number of explicitly stated Aid Themes so for maximum NPOV it would be reasonable to visit each one and find sources to estimate the relative improvement (or lack of) in each area. For example, economic growth is another of the stated aims of Australian aid and I suspect there is plenty of evidence to say that Indonesia's economy is growing.

Such an exhaustive analysis would probably require a page of its own, which in turn could be cited in the summary of the more generic page covering relations between Australia and Indonesia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.8.12.133 (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Opinion

I was wondering, what is your opinion of Wikipedia:Attribution#Unpublished synthesis of published material? Hesperian 13:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No opinion. DavidYork71 13:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Other than to confirm my understanding that if the verifiable conditions A and B characterise a circumstance or subject, you may report them both in providing a dissertation on that subject or circumstance - in the same para, or even same sentence (as the purpose of expression of best served). But you may not fairly say A caused B or A is always characteristic of B unless that's also verifiable. The exception is something incontestible (eg. when the sun came out the snow started to melt ---> the sun caused the snow to melt, snow cover is incompatible with solar radiation exposure) But why ask? DavidYork71 13:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's rather stronger than mere causation. I think it imposes on us an obligation to ensure that no juxtaposition of sourced sentences or phrases is likely to imply an conclusion not supported by those sources. For example, having references that say

"Bill Bloggs was living in Whitechapel in 1888"

and

"Jack the Ripper was active in Whitechapel in 1888",

does not make it appropriate to write

"Bill Bloggs was living in Whitechapel in 1888, during the period when Jack the Ripper was active"

because that is likely to be read as a suggestion that the two fact are related; for example, that Bloggs was Jack the Ripper, or that Bloggs was shaped by having lived in close proximity to the event. If we don't have a source for these latter statements, then it is inappropriate to form a sentence that is likely to imply them.

Why ask? Someone (not Merbabu BTW) asked me to have a look at the dispute playing out above and below this post. Does this bother you? Hesperian 01:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A,B,C

I think I pointed that out to David last week. No response. I figure he thinks A + B does actually = C. Merbabu 14:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Spell it out. What is the unverifiable conclusion that you want to stalk my talk page and my conversations with another user to complain about? DavidYork71 14:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the previously provided by both myself and Hesperian? Here is is again Wikipedia:Attribution#Unpublished synthesis of published material. Read my posts above, and all my edit summaries, and your archived talk pages. The "A + B ≠ C" issue is but one of several issues with your edits, but to spell it out yet again, I'm looking for the connection between Australian aid and terrorism against Western targets. It needs to reliably sourced, not your own connections. Merbabu 14:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you've now questioned the right of a few people to post on your talk page. My advice would be that if you are going to continue using WP, then you, like everyone else, should just get used to it. Merbabu 14:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

'Connection' doesn't equate to anything i've expressed. Concurrence in a period of time is it feature. Can it be refuted? 2001 to present, Australian aid commitments to Indonesia have multiplied severalfold (references in A-I article. Over the same period of time Indonesia has progressed to being (bar Iraq) the most dangerous country for Australians to visit. Reference there is to widely-reported mass murder atrocites, credible kidnapping threats, embassy bombing, historical content of travel advisories, ... do I have to go on? So those facts finding a place in an article on A-I relations I can support, and am not inclined as others to sulk SO long and SO deep about.

That explained, now its your turn to find the honour to apologise for the smarmy unfounded A+B=C remark, generated from your eavesdropping of my remarks to user Hesp. So the advice then is to aspire to the relevant quality & make your mother proud.

DavidYork71 14:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Indonesia has progressed to being (bar Iraq) the most dangerous country for Australians to visit. What a load on nonsense. If you want to make rubbish claims like this, please provide citations. I presume you have never visited and/or know little of the country. (MichaelJLowe 16:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

Know what you talk about Michael. Although I can't be in every country, i'm guided by the advice of consular authorities who can be. Perhaps you can name for me a country where more Austalians have been murdered and critically wounded by acts of violence last five years than Indonesia. I can give you these tips: not Lebanon, not Iraq, not Columbia, and not Afghanistan. The set of current travel advisories are all in one place which I'll encourage you to review them for contemporary threat assessments from Australians who are living and working there (which doesn't include either of us). PS. tell me if this message copies to your talk page or not.DavidYork71 16:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mate, even the Australian government doesn't place Indonesia on its list of 10 highest risk countries (http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/defer_all.html). The government travel advisories are partly driven by politics. If you want to make claims about higest risk countries for Australian you would need an independent academic study. I can make a plausible claim the highest risk country for Australians is Australia - think about the numbers of Australian dieing there every day due to violence. (MichaelJLowe 16:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

I presume you got the last message and I can reply here. Good research and point taken. I was not aware of this list, just of the content of the Indonesia travel warning and it's comparison to a few other dicey destinations. So Indonesia has a place in the 24 least advisable places to travel not the 10 must-avoids. Would you still say that in any of them as many Australians have been murdered or seriously wounded by what seem to be race-hate attacks in the last several years? In the other 23 countries, putting aside East Timor, I don't see Austalia putting in anywhere near so much resources into the causes of reconstruction, development, and public relations. & remember you can't bitch me out for authoring OR when it's only on my own talk pageDavidYork71 17:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There have only been 2 terrorist attacks in Indonesia which have killed Australians. There have been multiple attacks in USA, UK, Spain, etc as well. Are you advocating cutting ties with these countries? The reasons we should be generous with our aid to Indonesia are: (1) Indonesia has had a recent spate of devastating natural disasters (2) 49.0% of the Indonesians live on less than US$2 per day (3) they are probably our most strategically important neighbor given their geographic location (think Japanese invasion route in World War II) and extremely large population (4) there is a significant lack of understanding and sometimes mistrust between some Australians and Indonesians (but the number of people in Indonesia with the extreme views exhibited by the terrorists is extremely small) (5) we have significant anti-terrorist capabilities we can provide to assist Indonesia. What better way to solve the problems that exist than to engage with the country as much as possible? Regardless of what your views are, you need to ensure they don't creep into the content of the Wikipedia articles you are writing as we contend they have been. (MichaelJLowe 19:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Levy

on Islam and children you have quoted extensively from Levy. could you please provide the passages from Levy's work which you have been citing? in this instance i am referring to Islam_and_children#Child_enslavement. the Encyclopedia of Islam, says the opposite: any child born with at least one parent free is also free. ITAQALLAH 13:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification. you have misread: he is not talking about children borne from the master and his slave. he is talking about children the woman already has. ITAQALLAH 14:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Islam and slavery. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 21:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Your latest edits at Islam and Slavery were too drastic, DY. I reverted for you but I shouldn't have. Itaqallah has corrected my mistake. Arrow740 01:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I encourage you to go to the library and get books on Islam and use those. Arrow740 04:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lewis

Hi DY71,

Please take a look at [13]. This is written by Prof. Bernard Lewis. Please note the way he explains the matter etc etc. --Aminz 02:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anon

We get those from time to time. I filed a 3RR report on him, and he's currently blocked. He's probably a banned user. Can you tell me what that source called Levy is? Arrow740 07:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content disputes - a suggestion

Hi David

I’ve seen that you are involved in a few content disputes on Islam-related topics and I am taking the liberty here to make a couple of broad comments. Firstly though, I have barely looked at the actual detail of the content that is clearly in dispute, furthermore I do not pretend to know much about the topics at all. THUS, please understand that I am not passing judgement on your position, your edits, or any justification of yours (or any other editor involved). I am, however, suggesting you (and others) take a metaphorical step back and consider hard whether your edits are (a) done in a spirit of collaboration (no-one owns any articles, or is a free-agent here) and (b) that your edits are not done with any type of agenda pushing or an attempt to put your opinions into the articles.

Once again, please understand I’m not accusing you of not collaborating or agenda pushing – ie, I can't make such a judgement as I simply don’t know the detail of the dispute, let alone your position on these specific Islam-related articles (apart from a reference to ‘turds’ on a discussion page).

You’ve no doubt noticed that I haven’t said this on the other user pages. I say it to you because we have had ‘dealings’ over similar content disputes on another article(s?). On the other hand, I don’t know the other eds and they appear to have been here a bit longer. But this message is here for them to read too (as I know they will) so they will hopefully consider it themselves.

Kinds regards --Merbabu 01:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

PS, i should add i say this in good faith, i hope you see I've tried to be civil and respectful, and I don't expect you to reply if you don't want to. Ie, take it or leave it. cheers. Merbabu 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi David, i think given that these are clearly contentious articles, you really need to provide more informative reasoning for EACH one of your changes. Use of article talk page in advance would be good too. For example, it is not clear why this is made.... [14] kind regards Merbabu 04:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You would see that from the edit summary I've been undertaking a significant reorganisation of the article over the last few yours and continuing which you interposed yourself for some purpose to do with wanting to suppress coverage of the reality of Islamic slavery in Chad, Sudan, Mauritania and accompanying government justifications and denials. How it squares with your earlier (above) admission that you 'don't much about the subject matter'.. beats me, except to understand how the deniers suppressors of truth about Arab-on-Black slavery in the muslim have found a new champion.DavidYork71 04:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not changed anything that pre-dated my first comment under this section. my changes were made on your subsequent changes which clearly paid no heed to my comments above. No, I'm not an expert nor do i have much interest in the topic, rather I'm interested in Wikipedia and I'm questioning your approach to its guidelines. I recognised poor colaboration and POV a mile off - that doesn't require expertise in the subject at hand. A check of the subsequent edit history will confirm that my edit summaries merely asked for clarification and reasoning which is fair enough in what is supposed to be a collaborative effort on a contentious topic. I repeat my earlier comment that you need to be careful and bring people with you rather than work on your own. That's what collaboration is about.

Your post here above clearly shows you still don't understand that an ecnyclopedia is not a vehicle to voice your opinions no matter how noble they may or may not be. Have you seen this article - it may help: WP:TIGERS. Merbabu 04:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam and slavery i've now put back for GA-nom. Any help you can offer re getting pictures of Islamic slaves, Islamic slavery and slavemasters would be classed as a help.

DavidYork71 05:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC) David, i tried to slowly and incrementally got through all your changes, but i didn't finish. But now there is a suggestion to return the Islam and slavery to the old GA version (before your changes). And then, all changes, removals, additions should be agreed to by broad consensus on the talk page. I will support this. My suggestion is that any unilateral change wihtout consensus be immediately reverted and I will help in this process. If the others agree, it might mean that some of us may have to take it a bit slower to avoid getting tripped up by WP:3RR regards Merbabu 00:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Then you're suggesting that all the material I researched about 20th supression and outlawry, Chad, Sudan, Mauritania, Obligations of masters, Disabilities and dispensations for slaves, emancipation, enslavement should be stripped out in favour of some prior version which is exactly what user Itaqallah attempted to do with some indiscriminate 'cowboying' in the last 24 hours. DavidYork71 00:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting you be patient and seek consensus in a collaborative and non-combative style (as should be expected from all). Remember, we are not sole operators or free agents here. We need to work together. I have said I will help inforce this 'talk-page first' philosphy - on the other hand, i will be doing my best to be impartial and will speak up if I think the 'others' are being too dismissive or quick to discount your proposals. (ie, I'm am saying I will attempt to make sure you at least get heard and replied to). Why don't you select what you think is the 3 most important peices of info, present them on the talk page and see what response you get. Then, you can move onto another group. You've chosen a very controversial topic, you've gotta expect it to be hard work. On the other hand, i chose to write Indonesian architecture and have remained 100% unchallenged.

You will also find that approaching things in a calm, rational, non-combative, respectful manner that shows you are at least listening to others, actually goes a long way. Even if others don't, if you remain so, chances are they will notice and calm down too. Just my experience from being combative, non-collaborative and obnoxious myself at times.

As for the specific issues, my work last night did show some of your contributions to be, somewhat flexible interpretations of the references you cited. You will have noticed i fixed some of these. regards Merbabu 00:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• you have consciously misrepresented sources on Muhammad's slaves and inserted the same original research despite it having been pointed out on talk. that amounts to disruption. you are also reinserting material from polemic websites that you -refuse- to independantly verify. please address these issues on talk. ITAQALLAH 01:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Islam sentiment

What's that category means and why is that on your userpage? Just out of curiousity. Cheers -- Imoeng 10:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, it's just I haven't seen that before. Cheers again, have a lovely day - Imoeng 10:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How women can be treated in Saudi Arabia

How women can be treated in Saudi Arabia: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8102e_4307 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidYork71 (talk • contribs).

[edit] That anon

I don't think so, he probably went to women in Islam and then followed you from there. It's not really wikistalking. Arrow740 21:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Gravelpodium.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gravelpodium.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and children

Why did you revert me? Your comment on the hadith is POV since it claims that the child was afraid of Muhammad. Maybe it was a very young child which couldn't yet control its sphincters? What the h says is that Muhammad didn't loss his temper when the child pissed on him. And do not delete the word Prophet - he was one. --Al-Bargit 17:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense

[15] I'd suggest, those sort of edits don't really do much for your reputation as an editor. Merbabu 23:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Have a Coke and a smile :) (once in a while)DavidYork71 05:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:GhulanHaider11andFaizMohammed40NUmber2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GhulanHaider11andFaizMohammed40NUmber2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wikiislam does not provide a source for this image... it's copyright status is not at all clear. Please fix this if possible. Thanks. (→Netscott) 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you added a link to that Wiki's content disclaimer but in fact you need a link for the actual image itself. If it truly is a free image then you shouldn't have a problem finding the necessary copyright notice (for the image specifically). Thanks. (→Netscott) 00:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

David York, your removal of the source tag is improper. Regardless as to whether or not you now want to attempt to utilize the image as fair use the actual source of the image is still needed. Who took this photo? Who owns the rights to this photo? Do not remove the {{nsd}} tag until such time as you can provide these details. (→Netscott) 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible 4 reverts

Itaqallah claims you've reverted 4 times there, better self revert. Arrow740 07:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• yes, please do. ITAQALLAH 07:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • a full self reversion is required, to the previous version. thank you. ITAQALLAH 07:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • the only item reverted more than 3 times in the 24-hours was a the pov tag under 'legal disabilities', which I've reversed. The fourth reversion was after I asked what the pov concerns were. Itaqallah said 'emotive language is problematic. re "disabilities" and "lowered dignity"'. I removed 'lowered dignity' and the section pov tag.DavidYork71 07:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • DavidYork71, you need to self revert fully to the previous version, else i may report this matter at WP:AN3. the POVemotive language problems are self-evident. for example: "the legal disabilities affecting slaves at various times in their lives and reflecting that inferior status are", sentences should be worded neutrally and/or attributed, and certainly an explicit representation of the source. does Levy state that they are "legal disabilities" affecting slaves "at various times in their lives", which "reflect their inferior status"? why has the sect focused on only "disabilites", i am sure Levy must make note of legal rights the slaves possess currently not mentioned? ITAQALLAH 07:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

DavidYork71, a revert is any undoing of an editors' recent edit. it does not have to be the undoing of the same material. see WP:REVERT and WP:3RR. ITAQALLAH 08:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• DavidYork71, i would request you to cease the tendentious editing and disruption you have assumed at Islam and children, Islam and bestiality, Islam and slavery and others. if not, i will have to bring your behaviour to the attention of the wider community. ITAQALLAH 09:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got a better idea. Make an RfC and see if you can find someone to agree with you that what applies to slaves generally somehow doesn't apply when those slaves are child slaves.DavidYork71 09:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

that's not what you've done, you've copy pasted a tendentious section from another article and preceded the word 'slave' with 'child' under the assumption that for all of these rulings, those for children must be the same. this is original research and a gross distortion of the source. this skewed analysis is compounded by the fact that you are extremely reluctant to relate the rest of Levy's book in the same manner. ITAQALLAH 09:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Though there's nothing wrong with what he's done, it might be more encyclopedic to summarize and link to the other article. Arrow740 09:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The link's there, and so's the summary of important points. All in all, it shows some quite significant differences between how Islam allows the children to be treated as against other standards of civilisation. The rest of Levy's treatise on the subject of slavery is about concubinage, history of slavery, and the meaning of the mukataba - not particularly relevant to children.DavidYork71 10:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

this seems to be precisely what you are doing, editing to skew prose against Islam in an attempt to subjectively compare it "against other standards of civilisation." this is contrary to the goals of an encyclopedia, and i would urge you to rethink your approach to editing here. ITAQALLAH 10:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

it ain't me who makes the rules of Islam, I'm just giving the rules their proper exposureDavidYork71 10:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

David, please see WP:TE and read carefully. Merbabu 11:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a copy of Levy (1969). The interpretations of what specific pages are being argued over? Merbabu 11:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

Just wanted to thank you for your GA review of Christianity and alcohol. Much appreciated! --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Islam and slavery

I'm too swamped in real life, and I'm currently on Wikibreak due to high amounts of wikistress as a result of repeated personal attacks on my person. I will put the Islam and slavery article on my watchlist, and perhaps in a week or so will return to editing the mainspace (to throw off the wikistalkers). Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 09:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My thoughts on achieving GA for this article

David, to summarise what has been said over and over but to now make it really blunt, there is a perception that as long as you edit the article and insist on your edits, then there are going to be POV questions. You are a self confessed person of 'anti-Islam sentiment' and your edit history and choice of article's show it. Perhaps if you really want to see the article get GA status, then you maybe need to stand back. This is not just on this article, but your general obsession with veiled anti-Islam sentiment. Your now deleted Islam and beastiality was a classic case in point. All your edits are pushing your 'anti-Islam sentiment' - ie, even done to small geckos that Muhammad said were "evil" were clearly meant to illicit ridicule even though they hide behind the protection of a reliable source. Understand that I have no great desire to protect Islam (I'm not even a Muslim), but i do have a great desire to protect Wikipedia from one-sided POV pushing. You should note that your edits have been the topic of conversation with people who actually haven't made there mark on 'your' articles or your talk page. But, you are fortunate that it takes a lot of work to mount a case to reign in an editor who is not an outright vandal but is nonetheless damaging wikipedia. Merbabu 11:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Arabslaverwomen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Arabslaverwomen.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 13:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Arabslavers1866.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Arabslavers1866.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 13:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• the source you added is inadequate, because that is not the original source of the image. the author (and thus copyright holder) of the image is its source, not someone's personal tripod page. ITAQALLAH 13:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • looking at this page, it doesn't seem that the missionary website frontline.org.za is the author of the Arabslavers1866 drawing either. ITAQALLAH 14:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • as an old public domain image just like this for example, any further investigation of its origins would be moot.DavidYork71 14:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
      • how do we know it's a public domain image if we don't know its original source? ITAQALLAH 14:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"Further sourcing unnecessary as this is a public domain image created > 100 years ago" - not so, how do we know it's a pd image if we don't know the original source? who says the picture was drawn 100+ years ago? ITAQALLAH 14:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

these are 19th century style engravings —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidYork71 (talk • contribs).

19th century style, maybe. who says it's from from the 19th century? we need the original image sources to verify it is 100+ years old and thus in the public domain ITAQALLAH 14:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

1866 is well over 100 yearsDavidYork71 14:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

who says it's from 1866? ITAQALLAH 14:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

see where i sourced it from DavidYork71 14:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

which source is that? be precise please... frontline doesn't say the image is from 1866, and it doesn't give the original source. ITAQALLAH 14:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

the source referencing you've been busy Strike-through textdeletingStrike-through text

they are not reliable sources, nor the author of the image, nor the copyright holders. they are not the original image source. ITAQALLAH 14:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

so except your feeling that certain scholars are unreliable in what they say you put forward no evidence that any of the images is not public domain and with one you want to believe that it was held in somebody's memory for 40+ years before that person created the image.DavidYork71 15:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

negative proof.. DavidYork... you must prove it is public domain, we assume by default that it is not public domain: the burden of proof is upon you. i don't know what scholars you're talking about. find a reliable source giving us details about these image, who drew it and when. on what basis do you assume that these illustrations must have been drawn at that particular time? it could have been drawn 20 years ago, by anyone. this is why we must have the relevant original source information. not from a tripod website, or an unreliable Christian polemic website. the idea is that anyone should be able to verify its copyright status, which can only be done when we know the image source. ITAQALLAH 17:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Parsa and myself have been have been placing the NPOV tags on the cards. See the talk page at Talk:The World (Tarot card) Since tarot cards were not designed for the occult, the placement of "occult" stub tags does constitute POV and ignores tarot's gaming heritage. These individual card pages offer nothing more than occult speculations and perhaps should be deletedSmiloid 00:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and slavery

"There are three whose prayer will not be accepted, nor their virtues be taken above: The runaway slave until he returns back to his master, the woman with whom her husband is dissatisfied, and the drunk until he becomes sober. Suyuti, commenting on Q. 4:34, see also Mishkat al-Masabih, English translation, Book I, Hadith No. ii, 74.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidYork71 (talk • contribs).

A lot of the material you have added to that article is excellent. There is also a lot of information in Arab slave trade that could be forked over there. For example, it should be noted in the body and intro that more slaves were taken from Africa into Muslim lands than were taken to Americas. I plan to expand the medieval jurisprudence section to include a discussion of the racist dogma. Arrow740 05:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, I just moved the section down. Arrow740 02:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I think he's come to a better understanding of WP:LEAD. Maybe you can try to put a new compromise intro on the talk for discussion. It's not urgent as the current intro isn't terrible. Arrow740 02:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well i did that. It's open for discussion. The current intro doesn't even mention Sudan, Mauretania or the range of modern opinions.DavidYork71 02:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] consistent tag removals

Please do not remove maintenance notices from articles on Wikipedia. It may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 07:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Sudanslaves.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sudanslaves.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Dear Fayssal

Would you be able to drop by and verify an Arabic-English translation of a short section at this location: [16] Another user has required it. With regars, DavidYork71 00:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi David. I did my best and posted a new and complete translated version at the article talk page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plese reconsider your nomination of Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq

Hi David,

I've just put a lot of work into improving Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq so that the article is not now anything like what it was when you nominated it for deletion. I'm still not satisfied with the article, but it has roughly the proper scope and many more reliable sources. I think what I've done shows that there's too much material out there to combine this article with anything else. Significant gaps remain and some subjects should have footnotes from more sources, but I think the article is several steps toward what it should be. Noroton 22:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Arabslaverwomen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Arabslaverwomen.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (→Netscott) 01:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Sudanslaves.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sudanslaves.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (→Netscott) 01:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox

David York, your editing is problematic given the very evident nature of your desire to utilize Wikipedia as an anti-Islam soapbox. If you continue to edit in this way you will find yourself encountering more and more difficulties as you participate on the project. Kindly cease your soapboxery point of view pushing in this regard. (→Netscott) 01:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll do what I expect others to do, which is to put reasons on talk when I POV-tag a section rather than doing it reactively without specifying comment in a way that leaves the eds guessing.DavidYork71 01:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Netscott -- did you have a specific example of such soapboxery?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.8.12.133 (talk • contribs).

David, stop feigning innocence. Your contribs history is all the evidence that is needed. You repeatedly argue you point, insist on having your POV inserted over and over. Look at the articles you choose to edit. You've said yourself that you have anti-Islam sentiment and that you are setting out to report the 'truth' about islam. Look at this talk page too.

And please stop pretending you don't know what the POV issues are. We know you are not that stupid. This is from you:

Once I'd address those specified reasons for your NPOV-tag I detagged. On that page we have a policy that an NPOV tag will not sit unless it is backed up, fairly promptly, by POV complaint specifications on talk. Also, we take down the tag after the complaint has been considered and addressed and/or when the discussion has subsided.DavidYork71 02:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

David, perhaps you should ask the person first before 'de-tagging' rather than simply asserting you have solved the problem. As for "our" policy, my interpretation is that you unilaterally take it down after you've worn down each editor who doesn't have as much time as you (as suggested by your conspicuosly advertised home page and CV).--Merbabu 13:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What's a word for someone who consistently shows a level of interest in you or things you do that you've just never found reason to have in them or what they do? .. a fan?, a creep? .. no wait, yes, a BOTFLY!DavidYork71 13:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

can we suggest that your resort to name-calling rather than addressing issues shows I'm close to the mark and you have no decent reply? Merbabu 13:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

all I hear is the same fly buzzing around the same place day after day, unperterbed and unedified by the lack of interest and attentionDavidYork71 14:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4 reverts on Islam and slavery?

David York, it appears as though you have reverted (that is undid the work of a fellow editor) four times on Islam and slavery. I'm going to be reviewing your edits to verify this shortly but in the meantime I suggest you do the same and if you find that you've undid the work of other editors four times then a self-revert would be in order. (→Netscott) 02:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seen this?

I see you've been editing Islam and slavery. You might find this interesting (be sure to read through the caption):

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noroton (talk • contribs) 03:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

It should be reduced down. Arrow740 03:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion

No I did not know that. That is really interesting. So interesting that I'm moved to remind you that you might find a great home for that fact here: Template talk:Did you know Noroton 04:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aminz reported you for 3RR

[17]. Arrow740 05:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC) You are allowed to defend yourself. Arrow740 05:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Murray & Hernstein

DavidYork71, I will not disagree that Murray & Hernstein's work constitutes valid, if imperfect, sociological science. However, the associated graph is obviously quite controversial. Mainspace isn't censored, but there is really no reason to host it in userspace, where it will inform hardly anyone, and may be used against you. Proabivouac 06:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont' understand what it is trying to say - or what David is trying to say by using it. Merbabu 13:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I suppose it does not come from M&H after all. David, I presume nothing in particular about what you are trying to say; I am only offering friendly advice, which you are free to ignore.Proabivouac 14:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the three revert rule on Islam and slavery. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or engage in dispute resolution rather than an edit war. The duration of the block is 24 hours. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|your reason}} to this page and another administrator will review the situation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)