User talk:SafwanZabalawi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, SafwanZabalawi, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Skier Dude's talk page.

The article that you keep posting about is Human Revolution deleted twice, once by User:Fang Aili and more recently by User:Fastily. Human Revolution in SGI was not an article, it was a redirect. I suggest you contact Fastily or take it to WP:Deletion review - not me. Skier Dude (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Please stop signing your name in edit summaries, please--it's unnecessary and a bit distracting. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SafwanZabalawi. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 00:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drmies (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Buddha-nature, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ten Worlds (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, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Re:Classification of articles[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SafwanZabalawi. You have new messages at John Carter's talk page.
Message added John Carter (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SafwanZabalawi. You have new messages at John Carter's talk page.
Message added John Carter (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk page formatting[edit]

I am enjoying reading your talk page contributions and see that you have a lot to offer the Wikipedia project. Your contributions would be easier to understand if you used standard Wiki mark up to format and lay out your talk page posts. You can read about talk page edits at WP:Talk page and you'll find concise instructions at Help:Using talk pages. You also might want to check out the list formatting tips at Help:List. I think an hour or two studying the basics and learning where to find information on various layout tasks will pay off in your ability to clearly communicate both on talk pages and in articles. Thanks. Jojalozzo 02:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Safwan - just to emphasise this point, you need to use the indent markup (:) at the start of every paragraph. I took the liberty of editing one of your recent contributions - you can see the differences here and I hope you will agree it makes the whole thing easier to read. Thanks Mcewan (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Latest edits on Soka Gakkai[edit]

Okay this is becoming absurd and since there seems to be no real willingness to cooperate I shall forward this whole issue to the Administrators' noticeboard. .User John Carter has already hinted to what this could lead to. Its more than obvious that its the facts that some do find uncomfortable --- references can always be found/corrected. If in the long run you are doing a favour to the organisation you seem to represent? One has to wait and see. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. I have alerady made some constacts in terms of refernces to cretain incidents ... even though riverdalepress is not a traditional blog ... at the time the incidenst have been reported on CBS. I am glad you seem to realise that its not my intention to 'black mail' SGI, but there are issues that simply have to be mentioned - I tried as much as I can to allow for SGI's standpoint to be mentioned. Even though we have had a somewhat harsh debate history I see your willingness to cooperate.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai and moral responsibility[edit]

First, I think it is time that you are unequivocally informed that whether or not wikipedia has a moral responsibility, you as an individual are supposed to adhere to the behavior guidelines of wikipeidia. These include WP:TPG and, given some of your recent edits to Talk:Sōka Gakkai where you made comments which did nothing to improve the article but simply impugned other editors, also WP:NPA. I very strongly suggest that you read both pages thoroughly. It is possible that the comments you pointed out did not really belong on the article talk page. However, your own efforts to go out of your way and use the article talk page to impugn other editors is definitely crossing the line of WP:NPA. You should realize that editing is not a right, but a privelege. It can be, and often, unfortunately, is, abridged when editors use the article talk page for comments which have no purpose other than to apparently defame and insult others. One could reasonably say that your own gratuitous insults of others on that page very clearly cross that line. Please refrain from engaging in such behavior in the future.

If you believe that the actions of other editors rise to the level of requiring action, then you are free to bring them to the attention of others at one of the noticeboards. Otherwise, please make more of an effort to ensure that your own behavior adheres to conduct guidelines. Should they fail to do so, you may find your own ability to edit impacted. If you are so strongly concerned about your perception of a "moral obligation" to present a subject in conformity with your own POV, then I believe the best place to raise such questions is on a noticeboard. However, such comments do not actually belong on the article talk page, as they deal with broader issues than just the article. However, you might also want to read WP:Boomerang before you do so. John Carter (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

John, I appreciate a message in your input above, being that I should not be emotional in my input, thank you for this and I believe that you also agree that this equally applies to all parties in a discussion. I never intended to insults anyone. In fact, I was harshly criticised by another editor many times and even an independant editor noticed this tendency on attacking the person: On Dispute Resolution Board, after I kindly presented my matter along Wikipedia guidelines, I was criticised and here was the comment of an editor to my opponent in views:
"Please comment on article content, not on user conduct. Talking about other editors is not helpful. Criticizing other people is not a good way to resolve a content dispute. Please talk only about what should and should not be in the article and why. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)."
I certainly asked in the past whether certain comments which appeared on a Talk page were useful for improving the article or not, and I believe they were not. As far as we all share in the subjects we are speaking about, I believe we can cooperate and learn, and this honest intention from my side is apparent in many inputs (even with the acknowledgement of the editor with whom I have disagreements: saying just few days ago that I show respect and cooperation with him, after someone deleted his entry in an unacceptable manner). You mentioned that my input to Wikipedia is not a right, but I also believe that Wikipedia is a shared space of reasonable contribution which I did respect. To finalise this matter now : if any of my words were perceived as harsh, I offer my apology, as it is definitely unintentional. And I am looking forward for a fresh start, willing to learn and contribute.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Safwan, I regret to say that your comments above do not themselves lead one to think that you are primarily interested in contributing to wikipedia according to policies and guidelines. I hope I am mistaken in that, but that is my honest view based on the comments above. The fact that you started a thread for the specific purpose of challenging material already on the talk page is, however strongly you might believe otherwise, itself a violation of WP:TPG. Are you capable of understanding that? The fact that you saw fit to call attention to such comments after the fact in such a dramatic way is probably even more problematic than the comments to which you objected. Your own personal opinions regarding wikipedia are of no interest to anyone else either. If as you say you want to learn and contribute, then, at this point, I think the first thing you should do is to learn first, and contribute second. It is really not the words that were perceived as problematic, but the assumptions upon which the actions in question were made. Please read through all the relevant policies and guidelines provided to you at the top of the page.
Also, this is not a "shared space of reasonable contribution," as you said above. Anyone can misuse the word "reasonable" for any purpose, and they frequently have in the past. The policies and guidelines are the keys here. Basically, if you want to allege that someone else's sources are wrong, you go to the talk page and provide evidence, either from within the source itself or from other sources, that it is. And, yes, we generally prefer sources independent of the groups involved. That is really the only type of comment that should be made on the talk page. Also, regarding your recent edit summary at Nichiren Shoshu about a statement being "false," please realize that, even if you personally believe a statement to be false, that is not sufficient grounds to remove or change content to fit your own opinions regarding what is true or not. If you want to change such content, well, that's why the article talk pages are there.
Your way of presenting yourself has, to date, been extremely problematic. You seem to regularly assume that other editors are motivated by bad reasons, and that your own opinions, sometimes without supporting evidence, are somehow unquestionable. Please refrain from making any further personal attacks as per WP:NPA. Repeated personal attacks can be grounds for some sort of editing restriction. If you want to challenge material, honestly, the best thing you can do is find an independent or dependent reliable source before making comments about the reliability of the material.
I acknowledge that this material is some with which I am not as well versed as I would like. I am in the process of gathering, slowly, journal articles and other sources to see what they say, both the most recent and the oldest. But I want you to realize that there is no rush to do things here in wikipedia. You got the welcome template at the top of your page in late March, indicating you only created the account about three months ago. There is a bit of a steep learning curve initially around here, and it might be best if you were to spend a bit more time developing some of the articles on less significant topics, like perhaps biographies of group leaders and the like. Like I think I said before Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism lists on its main page several articles of "Top" importance that are still at "Stub" or "Start" level quality. I think it might be a good idea to spend a bit more time on some of those less contentious articles first, and get a bit clearer grasp of the processes here. John Carter (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
John, thank you for taking the time to present the above post. I'll respond to some of your points - putting judgments about personalities aside - & I'll focus on 2 facts: /1/ your sentence: "Also, regarding your recent edit summary at Nichiren Shoshu about a statement being "false," please realize... If you want to change such content, well, that's why the article talk pages are there ". Exactly. That's what I did. As you can check, I did not edit any word in that problematic sentence, left it untouched and entered a challenge to the editor involved on the Talk page.
Today, I read your comment on that talk page of Nichiren Shoshu and explained further the ground for my objection and the burden of proof is on the editor involved now in 2 areas: to show a policy requirement matching or contrasting a policy requirenment (of Nichiren Shoshu Administration) and also to show a citation, and I don’t see anything un-Wikipedia in this.
/2/ I am glad that you are getting interested in the subject and that: “I acknowledge that this material is some with which I am not as well versed as I would like. I am in the process of gathering, slowly, journal articles and other sources to see what they say, both the most recent and the oldest”. This truly wonderful, and I sincerely wish you understand the truth about the subject – but your reference to the “oldest” sources may as well be misleading. The word “oldest” may refer to the time when SGI was pressured under the domination of the arrogant priesthood who are obsessed with absolute authority. If you attach a recent image of a humanistic and open to the world organisation with the "oldest" sterotypes, then this will be like looking to the muddy dirty pond and ignoring the Lotus Flower flourishing above.
I agree with you that the project is an ongoing long term future oriented exercise, and this will provide more and more possibility of perceiving the truth from rumors and blind sterotypes. When you advocate Global Citizenship and call nationalists as evil minded – then this is bound to anger the racists, so SGI is proud to have critics and enemies, such as the racists, feudal arrogant priests and the emotional superficial mob – and that’s why also thousands of professors, scholars and world thinkers, some Nobel Prize winners voiced their friendship to SGI. This cannot be missed in the span of information available world wide.
Not withstanding, I am going to raise the issue of Credibility of Information with Wikipedia Policy or other responsible sides. I think you'd be supportive to any move to raise the credibility of provided information.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you serious??? You are calling those who disagree or are crtical "...racists, feudal arrogant priests and the emotional superficial mob ..." ??? You most be joking. If not its truely enlightning where you are comming from. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Nichiren Buddhism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ten Worlds (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) 13:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Soka Gakkai[edit]

Hi.

I hope this edit helps get things on track.

If you don't like my re-structuring it that way, please feel free to revert me.

Best wishes, 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for your response.
The real question here is about WP Guidelines in regard to Deletion. Let's be clear of what we are discussing:
In order to present the contents of a certain source, editor can make "citation" - summerizing the source's opinion - or also can give direct 'quotation" of the source on the subject.
Citation may be presented by the editor involved to include editor's personal interpretation (of what the source said). This turnes the citation into a POV, and into something which was not truly mentioned in the cited source.
On the other hand, bringing true quotes - impartially - clarifies the perspective of the source without adding own interpretation, POV etc...

The subject in the text was about Toda's publications - and the two quotes were exactly about that subject, precise and clear. The problem emerged not from the contents of the quotes - but from rejection of including other views, quotes or sources into the text.

I am determined to resolve this matter of dispute on how WP works. The firt stage is to discuss it here. Again I am focusing on WP Guidelines.
The problem here originated from the editor involved rejection of balanced views. This makes WP article a propaganda platform for one view only deleting others contribution. I said that in every intelligent discussion you have other views presented, not just one single interpretation. This was openly rejected by the editor involved, and this is the origin of the problem: rejection of balanced and mature editing.
I maintain my right under WP to introduce information from diversity of reliable sources, not just one, and I will rework the text (of the related section in the article) to be more indepth, informative and balanced. WP is not a platform for propaganda, but presentation of variety of sources. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
One step at a time. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to make a suggestion to you; take it or leave it;

forget everything that has happened up until now

...and treat each thing as one "suggestion". One thing - to add something, or delete something, or change something.

That way, we can talk about a specific sentence, and discuss it.

If consensus says "yes", we can add it. (And if someone removes it, you can 'revert' per the consensus').

If there's a disagreement, that can be sorted out - and, one way or the other, we'll decide if that sentence should be added or not.

It's not super-fast, but it works. And even though it might seem slow, it's quicker than years of trench warfare.

Give it a try. Let's sort out just this one suggestion - the 2 quotes. Forget the reasons why we're discussing it; let's just say, someone wants to make some change, and we can discuss it, and reach consensus.

It might seem like slow progress, but hey... it's progress. Do you understand what I mean? 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It will be a progress when you'll come to realise that WP is not Facebook. In Facebook or other discussion groups you may even use an icon "Like" - and get the number of votes, or seek "consensus". Presenting facts or academic work - does not require your or others agreement or disagreement, but reliable sources. Please make yourself familiar with the basics and you can save time not writing on my page. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I have never used facebook, or any similar site, so I don't know how those work. But I do know how Wikipedia forms consensus through discussion. I never suggested any type of voting. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nichiren may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Buddhism]] includes various schools such as [[Nichiren Shu]], [[Nichiren Shoshu]] and [Soka Gakkai]] with their own interpretations of Nichiren's teachings, however, despite the differences between

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Buddhism in Japan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Toda (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) 11:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Shii (tock) 21:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)