User talk:Karl Meier

Click here to leave a new message.

Faith Freedom International

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Please do keep watching for the edit warriors on this article, your creating it provides a magnet for every kind of POV warrior, but the way to start was exactly like this, with evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. I will make Ali Sina a redirect. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Faith Freedom

Great job there. Arrow740 04:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your vote

Would you please care to explain why you voted against my steward election. All you've done is link to a User Talk page in which I am being insulted and my views and actions misrepresented. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 20:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have replied on the relevant Meta-Wiki page. -- Karl Meier 22:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Hi Karl, I see you've been working on the Islamophobia article. IF you have the time (and the inclination) you might want to write something about the new EU report that was just released. I'm going to try to read it soon but I haven't had the time. jaco♫plane 17:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've now done some significant restructuring, rationalising and generally cleaning up of this article. It needs more, but I have you will approve of the direction in which I've taken it. I believe it is now a much better base for us to work on. Metamagician3000 11:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Your recent request for checkuser

You recently compiled and listed a case at requests for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case, in accordance with the procedures listed in the table at the top of the requests for checkuser page. For an outcome to be achieved, we require that you provide these diffs as soon as possible. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

WP:RPA

refactoring should be done by an independant party. refactoring possible "personal attacks" against oneself involves a conflict of interests. if we were all to do that, i imagine we would be refactoring eachother's comments excessively and unnecessarily. i personally don't see the comment as much of a personal attack. ITAQALLAH 16:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

i don't think he was or would accuse you of that, he was simply saying "don't bite my head off." i feel you are overstating the evidence. ITAQALLAH 16:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad image

I just want to make sure you understand my point from Talk:Muhammad. An image needs to be more than informational. Ahmadi beliefs are part of Islam--but they don't deserve much if any discussion on Islam. Similarly you must argue that depictions of Muhammad are important enough to belong on his main page. This is not obvious because the tradition of depicting him is not nearly as important as calligraphy or aniconism. This isn't censorship for Muslims--this is representing tradition--which is the important thing. I just want to you start arguing for why images are important enough to belong--providing information is not a justification--since this provides information about Muhammad's legacy--but obviously doesn't belong on his page. gren グレン 07:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What you said about representing certain events makes sense to me. It's a good point but I still think it needs to be weighed against misrepresenting a tradition. When I see a page about Muhammad I don't expect it to be plastered with images of him because that's not how he's depicted. I will have to think about this more. In the end I don't think there's a 'right' answer and it'd be nice just to come up with a solution everyone can accept. gren グレン 14:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration

Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 12:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Islam

Islam is a good article nominee. This is the second time it is nominated. I failed its first nomination and left comments on the talk page. I'm not sure, however, whether my concerns have been addressed since I do not watch this article. Frankly, I'm pessimistic. Beit Or 20:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The nomination was probably spurious, so I've removed it.[1] Beit Or 20:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Funnypop12

Your vigilance re this sockpuppet vandal is appreciated.Proabivouac 10:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Aminz was only trying (unsuccessfully) to change the subject to his disputed additions. Aminz isn't part of this controversy, and in fact himself uploaded an image of Muhammad the other day.Proabivouac 23:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny

I see nothing funny about the image in question. --E tac 21:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Since it bothers you I will refrain from readding it to the article Pat Robertson --E tac 21:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a cool picture though. --E tac 22:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it alright at this article? --E tac 22:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The 700 Club

Hi. I was patrolling CAT:CSD and saw where you had tagged Image:Patrobertsonmetaler.jpg for speedy deletion. Can you explain why it is inappropriate? I am not familiar with any discussion on the subject ... so please forgive my ignorance ... it looks like just a TV screenshot for an article about the TV show. At any rate, I have tagged it as an orphaned fair use image ... unless there is some other pressing concern, I don't see any other speedy deletion criteria that would apply. Thanks. --BigDT 01:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... I see what you're talking about ... someone with arthritis may have trouble bending their finger down so I didn't think anything of it. If it stays an orphan, it will be deleted once the waiting period is up ... if it ceases to be an orphan, it can be nominated for deletion at WP:IFD ... but unless it is just being used for vandalism, it doesn't really need to be speedied. Or at the very least, I'm not going to be rogue and speedy it. ;) --BigDT 21:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Explain edit please...

Can you please explain this edit. Is it about Pat Robertson looking funny in that photo or the photo not being the right license? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wfisher (talk • contribs) 07:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

WP:LEAD

It would be great if you could go through the other Islam articles looking for bad introductions. If you want to do so and run into any problems let me know. Arrow740 11:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You should check out the intro for Islam and slavery. Arrow740 19:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of that article, there's an anon used only for anti-Semitic rants and reverts in action there now. Arrow740 02:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

jihad

Karl, Thanks for the link. Actually I think I need something more basic: before I can understand someone presenting their position on something I need to understand who they are and who they speak for. I have spent too long seeing different "proven from the Bible" type arguments in my own religion to be able to read someone's argument and start thinking "then that's what Islam says". I also, as mentioned, have friends who wear that hat but are pretty relaxed in the way they interprete everything. Leviticus tells me not to do all sorts of things I conveniently ignore and fortunately most discussion on my religion has moved beyond that. So where can I find who represents what position and see the positions reviewed rather than just read the proponent of one view? --BozMo talk 14:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In the Quran the violent parts are the later parts, and these abrogate the older ones where there's a conflict. Arrow740 19:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Karl, for your comments to this ridiculous RfC.Proabivouac 08:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Watt

Karl, please state your reasons regarding removal of Watt's quote on the talk page. Watt is one of the key historians of Islam in the West and has written many scholarly books. He is for example one of the authors of a the Cambridge History of Islam. --Aminz 05:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

hi

One, two, Freddy's coming for you...Three, four, better lock your door...Five, six, grab your crucifix...Seven, eight, gonna stay up late...Nine, ten, never sleep again.

im coming 4 u

Im coming 4 u and i will get you. And kill you you donkey sucking fagot. Go back to Arabia with your terrorist buddies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacksternfeild (talk • contribs) 03:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Uhhhh... That so scary... And so convincing! Now, take your trolling and nonsense somewhere else. -- Karl Meier 21:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Islam

Karl, just like I explained to User:Farhansher who has tried to add Islamophobia to this template, there are no equivalent examples of such links in equivalent templates. Both of these additions are a bit too much about politicizing the template. That's not what religious navigational templates are about. Please kindly refrain from trying to add that back unless through talk page usage you can establish a consensus to do that. (→Netscott) 22:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Ali Sina

Yeah sorry about that, I was reverting alot of vandalism then and when the RC reloaded i saw your edit removing text, viewed the diff and without paying too much attention to what was removed or by whom reverted it, i just need to slow down next time...lol.--RyanB88 09:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[2] an AfD that might interest you. Arrow740 03:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)