User talk:Faizan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Crystal Clear Icons Apps Messenger.png
User Talk E-mail My part Toolbox Bookmarks Guestbook
If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please click here and let me know. I am human and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. I am always open to civil discussion. I will respond on this talk page unless you specify otherwise. Faizan

(In the memories of  Yinta)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015[edit]

Islam, a religion of peace, not war.[edit]

Hello i changed some info on the page Islamic terrorism today, i just wanted to ask a question, is Islam a religion of war? if the answer is yes than how are you alive, well your name Faizan appears to be from Asia, Pakistan maybe, it is a muslim name so hope you know about Islam. But if the answer is no then how can we say the terrorists are following Islamic knowledge? That just blames the whole religion, but if we just add a line saying, ‘following their own interpretation of the Quran and Hadits then it makes more sense. Hope you understand what i mean. Salam — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

How am I alive? So you do agree that Islam is potent enough to kill me in either case? I would not share my personal thoughts, anyway. Your edit added personal commentary: Terrorists are not Muslims, they are only so called Muslims and “following” Islam. Faizan (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Such a comment on the top of the lead? The role played by the Koran is disputed. We already have enough clarifications on the article: "The role played by the Qur'an, Islam's sacred text, in opposing or in encouraging attacks on civilians is disputed." Faizan (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

Some concerns about activities at Agnosticism[edit]

Hi there Faizan, I'm bringing this issue to you as one of the two most substantial editors for the above article (the other being JimWae). I have the article in question watchlisted and I noticed a substantial edit to it yesterday that I decided to investigate. I discovered that several reliable sources and the content they support had been removed, on the grounds that they were not academic sources, based (apparently) on a glaring misreading of WP:V. The user seemed to be new, so this wasn't all that surprising, but the more I looked into the matter, the more I became suspicious. The user in question Kylerops (talk · contribs) has all of five edits on the project and tried to force this same edit a few months back. They "discussed" this matter with IIXVXII (talk · contribs) on the article talk before trying to force this issue, but IIXVXII also has relatively few edits that are largely in the same spaces and seems to be pushing for the same basic changes to the article, using similar language, and I find a similar situation with Balljust (talk · contribs) and Asb0y (talk · contribs). There are a number of additional short-term accounts over the past 15 months or so who have only a few edits to their name that have altered the article in a somewhat similar manner, but the case for these is not as strong as the association between the four above.

I wouldn't say the case is a slam dunk with regard to sockpuppetry for all of the accounts necesarily, but it's enough to send up a red flag for me, and I thought you should be notified. If it is a case of socking, the user in question is not being super disruptive as they are waiting months between inserting controversial edits and making an attempt discuss the issue on the talk page (though their understanding of policy with regard to the edits in questions seems weak and they seem to be relying instead on reiterating their subjective/OR opinion through multiple voices, hoping it will simulate or generate consensus to support their changes. Anyway, hope this is of help to you; let me know if it goes to SPI. Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 03:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys! I do not have control over the Asb0y (talk · contribs) account. I have stopped editing the page, because I got busy/distracted with other things. If you guys know of anyway I can prove the accounts are unrelated let me know. Otherwise, I guess you have my word, whatever that is worth. I agree that I do not have a complete understanding of the policy with regards to the edits, but I learned as best I could and minded the feedback of other users. Anyways, I maintain that all of my edits were well motivated and improved the quality of the article. balljust (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to respond here balljust, and for doing so civilly despite the suspicion I've alluded to. For the record, Kylerops also has denied the implication and given that there is really no outright disruptive behaviour going on here, I'm willing to take you both at your word on the matter (not withstanding the fact that I'm the one who decided to raise the issue in the first place). As to proving the accounts are unrelated, there's no absolutely certain method, but if there was disruption and some suspicion of socking we could/would very quickly get to the matter through a checkuser process at WP:SPI. But I'd just as soon not waste our collective time on that. Other editors may feel otherwise, which is why I brought the matter of my suspicion to the two most prolific contributors of the article, so they could make an informed decision accordingly (since I'm not guaranteed to be working on it indefinitely). But given your response, I'm happy to assume good faith and believe the activity that struck me as red flags may just be coincidence (which does of course happen). On a side note, I probably should have just hosted this on my page and pinged everyone from there, Faizan included...apologies for the clutter, Faizan! Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 13:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter[edit]

One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Australia Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)