User talk:Khello

Start a new talk topic.
When you leave a comment, I will answer you here as well as copy the discussion to your talk page. Feel free to leave anything!

Welcome!

Hello, Khello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Alai 19:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The weasely edits at Zakir Naik

Thanks, I see you already took care of it! Good work. The way I look at it is, if any user does edits from an IP and any single of their edit is useless (usually the rest are too), I revert them straight away. I see it in the way that if an anonymous user doesnt do constructive edits, he can easily be disregarded. Thats what I did for Ali Sina where some idiots tried to ravage the article and I reverted it. These kinds of vandal or psuedo vandal users know that if they get behind a username, they have to reflect more responsibility in their edits. Feel free to revert everything back to what it was. I saw it and I didnt want to deal with it. It looks like the Pro side (fans of Zakir Naik) are persistent in getting their ideas in. The only way is to maintain a close watch on the article. I'm watching Ali Sina nowadays and devote my editing time to that page and monitor it for any vandalism and POV issues. One helpful step you can do which will reduce vandalizm is, changing all those external links into references. That gives some respect to an article and people are less likely to vandalize it then. Thats what I feel. After the article looks more respectul, people are less likely to damage it and any damage done is usually so extreme that we can revert it straight away. Its harder to spoil a good article. These articles if not checked like this grow 'weedy' very fast. The problem is as again, people are inserting their own opinions. An anonymous internet user's opinion must be deleted away ruthlessly, as it has no place in the Encyclopedia.--Matt57 07:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Its going to be a battle to maintain Zakir Naik. I'll excuse myself from this and just focus on Ali Sina. Everyone is putting in their personal opinions. I hope the situation can be controlled. --Matt57 23:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Carter's New Book

I noticed we agree that the Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid entry is too long especially the controversy section. I mean the essay should be about the book, in the main, and not about how many people had negative/positive to say about the book. Have you ever taken any article to arbitration? And why include a photo of Dershowitz? Best-- Luigibob 21:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

no I've never taken an article to arbitration- but I think we should give this a bit more time as it seems to be slowly getting better! As for that photo I really don't see the need for it- kinda gives undue weight to Dershowitz over everyone else- but again I think we should give it more time and discussion and I'm sure it'll be dealt with :) --khello 21:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits have been reverted

on the Carter book page. Just to let you know the Dershowitz quotes are already in the article. The new quote additions just make them in the article twice. Jasper23 07:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to get across but within minutes I was reverted! I wrote that massive thing on the talk page to demonstrate what's wrong with those edits. I'm sure this'll be sorted soon once people see the irrelevance of it all- I'm trying my hardest not to be sucked into an edit war. You can join in the "discussion" on the talk page- thanks! --khello 07:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Book

Hi! Thanks for putting your reasons on the summary but I am having difficulty understanding. Hopefully you can understand me too and we can cooperate. Anyways, my questions. How can a review about the book not be relevant to the article? What do you mean when you say his arguments are not? His arguments are a critique of the information in the book as it says if you read it. As for Clinton, the reason why it was added (not because it needed a review, it doesn't), is to show where Dershowitz stands but more importantly because Clinton, like Carter, is also 1) a U.S. president, 2) Democratic, 3) Brokered peace for Israel, 4) Nobel Peace Prize winner. That is why it is something interesting, not just a book review. --Shamir1 05:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shamir1,

Maybe I should have phrased my comment better- what i meant to say was while you may be using a review of the book as a reference, the particular points quoted in the article are not explicitly related to the book. For example:

Carter has changed. Something has happened to his judgment. I don't understand what it is, but I know it is very dangerous. At a minimum, his legacy is irrevocably tarnished, and he will never again be a factor in the quest for Middle East peace. At worst, he is emboldening terrorists and their apologists in the Arab world, encouraging them to go on with their terror campaign and refuse even to recognize Israel's right to just exist.

This seems, a criticism of Carter himself rather than the book or its contents. To talk about his "legacy", to me, is tackling the man, not the ball. The main thrust of Konner's argument is the fact that he believes Carter condones terrorism- so a simple sentence on that would suffice. I hope you can also see that the blockquote about him refusing a post at the Carter Center isn't really relevant to the book's discussion. Which brings me back to my point: while the source you quote may be a review, those points aren't.

As for the Clinton comment I can see what you're trying to do, but this is something to go in the Alan Dershowitz or The Case for Peace. I'm sure others can go through the rest of the article and add a sentence or two about who likes a critic/praiser of Carter- it just doesn't make for a better reading.

Hope that answers your questions --khello 06:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Book - contin

Thanks for replying. Although I understand what you are telling me, please see my side as: None of that other information has been removed, shortened, or talked about as extensively as my short edit. Those passages are even a bit longer. They do not address Carter, but instead they address debate on the book (not the book, debate about it) and assault on him. It does not address the book or Carter, one basically addresses "Jewish media" or something of the sort. Meanwhile, the Zayed ordeal has more controversy, importance, and interest to the article. It deals with the author firsthand in an attempt to cite proof of his bias and view. And really, it really is not that long at all if you look at it. Dershowitz's op-ed was only given a one-sentence passage. I do believe you when you say you were not trying to attack me in specific, but it does feel that way since this is the only edit being pinpointed. --Shamir1 02:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go through the article sometime this week (when I get a good chunk of free time) and try and weed out all these excessive and irrelevant bits. Again, I'm sorry that it seems like you're being picked on, but like i said before it's much easier to tackle a recent edit than one that's been there for a while.

In the meantime I encourage you to address those passages you're mentioning and edit them accordingly. I suspect there's going to be a lot of activity on this article in the coming weeks, and I'm sure in the end something acceptable to all will be produced.

And Happy New Year by the way! --khello 06:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

kouroukan fouga

hi khello. im here to ask you what part(s) of the kouroukan fouga article need to be cited or verified to bring this piece up to snuff. i saw one source that was added (not by me) that seemed to have nothing to do with the article. your help in fixing this article will be appreciated. thanks in advance Scott Free 15:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scott Free,

I just came to this article as part of the wikify project (but found the topic very interesting by the way!). My only concern with the references was that there were non within the body of the article. Also, for an article about such a historical document I would have thought there would be some more academic journal/book references to use that'll really improve the article even further (to be honest i think the article is pretty informative as it is- I added the [[Category: Mali Empire]] to give more of a context to it). I also think a few "See also" links would really put the article into context. If you want help with that stuff I'd be more than happy to do so, but at the moment I don't really have access to a library so can't really help with the sourcing side. Regards --khello 16:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Kourou2

I agree. I know of one source via UNESCO (that's how I found out about it originally). I will go through and site that one by the end of the week. thnx 4 the quick feedback. Scott Free 17:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries- you just happened to catch me when I woke up! I'd be happy to help out with the article if you need it --khello 17:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Peloponnesian War as this week's WP:AID winner

AzaBot 12:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please confirm your membership

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 19:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC).