Jump to content

User talk:I. Khider

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cpdilkus (talk | contribs) at 15:14, 16 January 2009 (→‎Vandalism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Hello, I. Khider, welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are a few pages that you might find interesting and helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages (the discussion tab) using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date.

Don't be afraid of making mistakes, as all changes are kept, and problems can be easily reverted with the "history" tab of each page.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Quiddity (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Muslimgauze has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bwordpress\.com' (link(s): http://crab.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/live-series-2-the-london-ambulance-station/) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, XLinkBot, however--I meticulously researched my source and believe the site in question vital for informational and accuracy purposes. I further qualified my usage of source by utilizing accepted MLA standards. -I. Khider
Hi.
That's just a robot comment above (an automated process that noticed a link to a wordpress.com site). I recommend you check out WP:Reliable sources in regards to the bot's message.
I've left a welcome template at the top of your talkpage (but new threads are generally started at the end of a page), I'll let you digest some of that before deluging you in more info ;)
I wish User:AlexOvShaolin (talk · contribs) was still around - he did most of the previous work at Muslimgauze and Bryn Jones discography, and could confer with you better, however, let me know if you have any questions and I'll try to be useful. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muslimgauze

Hello Quiddity, First, sorry if I am doing this incorrectly, I am still a bit of a Wikipedia virgin. Second, thanks for your outreach and offers of help. The Muslimgauze entry process, along with my entry skills, are works-in-progress. There are several things I want to cobble together for the entry, among them to dig out earlier material such as previous entries, pictures and images of live show posters. I am not sure why they were removed in the first place but I believe they should go up. Where would I look? Thanks and advance apologies for any protocol violations. I. Khider (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone told me years ago, you aren't a real Wikipedian until you've made 50 'mistakes'! There is far too much to read, so we try to assume good faith as a core practice :)
I've copied your message here, just to keep things in one place (there are various accepted practices for where to respond to talkpage messages. Some people reply in the original thread's location, some copy remarks back and forth. (Some people just ignore us entirely!)). I've put your talkpage on my 'watchlist', and will try to keep an eye on it for the next few months, so you can just reply (and ask questions) here if you like.
Regarding the pictures, that's covered by Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Non-free content. I'm not very familiar with the image policies and guidelines, but it is fairly strict. If I understand it correctly - for fair-use the image must be 'critically' discussed within the text. Cover art is not used in our discographies - only in articles about the item or its creator.
Always look to the Featured content (articles and lists, primarily) when seeking examples for guidance. Specifically Stereolab and anything from Wikipedia:Featured lists#Discographies.
Happy to help (especially people with good taste in culture ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Quiddity,

Thanks again for your help. As Bryn's official biographer, I have access to A LOT of images relevant to the topic. Live show image footage, letters, articles, personal photos and the like. The book designer might not be able to include all and I think Wikipedia would be a good place to air them. When you say "critically discussed", how do you mean? I was thinking the images could be used to support claims. Such as if I say Jones played at a certain venue, then I have a photo of him playing there. If Jones claimed something in a letter, then I have a photo of the letter with his signature.Obviously I do not want to inundate--but I want to create maximum impact. Can you show me an example of an excellent bio entry on wikipedia? Thank you again.

Oh yeah, what does this mean "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits."--I was trying to undo some stuff that should be included and I still got that message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I. Khider (talk • contribs)

Oops, my first point was to the wrong explanation; fixed now. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've replied to your questions at my talkpage. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A rambling reply at my talkpage. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replied at my talkpage. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello folks,

In response to Quiddity's request on my talk page, I'd be happy to help you negotiate Wikipedia's image policies and procedures. Give my a few days and I'll get back to you, if that's cool. Best, Pinkville (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muslimgauze, continued

Salaam, and thanks for your courteous query about my edit. My main concern is the characterization of Jones' knowledge as "sophisticated." (Compared to whose?) His "knowledge" should be described in neutral terms, or not at all.

Parts of the passage are vague and could be misconstrued. "Muslimgauze references" are references to or about Muslimgauze rather than by him, as you seem to have meant. "Conflict regions" is non-specific. (It depends on the context provided in the following paragraph.)

It is important, when editing an article about someone you admire, not to let the text drift into fantalk or advocacy. I often have to struggle with this myself. (Just because there are always a few editors on WP with an axe to grind, that doesn't mean we are justified in pushing our own "correct" views. See: Wikipedia is not a battleground. I recommend it not because you have been "battling" — you've been very courteous — but because every active editor eventually runs into people who are battling, and it's good to be prepared. In fact, the whole WP:NOT policy has been very helpful to me.)

The best articles trust the readers to form their own judgments. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 14:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alarob,

Thanks for your point of view. However, my claims have sources and I can cite them. My question was, how would you like me to do so? If you dispute a claim I post with regards to Bryn Jones--tell me how you would like it substantiated. As his biographer, I did my homework. Dealing with the topics Jones was obsessed with is bound to raise ire. That said, his knowledge is sophisticated--if you go through Muslimgauze album, track list references and interview footage--you would surmise that indeed Jones has more knowledge than the average person about said conflict regions.

Let us take this one step at a time: The crux of (one of) your contentions are that you feel Jones did not have sophisticated knowledge. I now amended the script in question. My research points to the fact Bryn Jones did do a lot of research in order to make his references.

Will you work with me on how to cite my sources satisfactorily? |I. Khider (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Muslimgauze task force

I have created this group, and announced its creation in the Musicians, Alternative music and Rock music WikiProjects. I doubt this will become a major, highly-populated WikiProject, but even if it only serves as a scratchpad for two or three Wikipedians, I will consider it successful.

You can join here. Discussion takes place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Muslimgauze task force; I'll make a shortcut for that when I have time to fuss over the details. Please feel free to invite anyone you consider helpful. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Welcome! Policies and guidelines

Hi, welcome! I hope that you're getting the hang of Wikipedia. I can't tell from your previous posts whether you've looked at the Wikipedia policies and guidelines or not. (For example, the links which Quiddity gave in the first post at the top of this page.)

A quick summary of the quick summary Wikipedia:Five pillars:

"All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments; original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and are thus inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; an advertising platform; a vanity press; ... indiscriminate collection of information; or a web directory."

"Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible ...."

Muslimgauze has to be a "neutral", "professional" encyclopedia article. It can quote opinions of notable people, but cannot contain any opinions of the people working on the article (unless quoting a professional published source.) All info must be cited to reliable, notable third parties. Wikipedia does not allow any original research to be used -- only materials which have been published in (more-or-less) "mainstream" sources. We also shouldn't have any articles which are basically a "fan site", nor any links which are basically here as advertising for another cite, a business, a book, etc.

You might want to delete every scientific and scholarly entry because they do not cite "mainstream sources" As we know, only Fox news, or any media conglomerate source tells the truthI. Khider (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly helpful -

Best wishes -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear mysterious 'User',

Go quote your entry to yourself and sod off. If you can't reveal your identity or specify what exactly you see as objectionable then go vandalize someone else's entry.I. Khider (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes about the suitability of a source can be settled at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The gold standard is academic sources, but other sources are often acceptable. As for "mainstream" sources, Muslimgauze probably receives very little coverage in Rolling Stone magazine, so well-regarded alternative music publications are usable. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Reply to I. Khider --
Hi. I'm trying to be both helpful and friendly. The reply that you made on my Talk page seems very unfriendly to me and I think would seem very unfriendly to almost any Wikipedia user.
----- One of Wikipedia's guidelines is "Assume good faith". WP:GOODFAITH
"Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without particularly strong evidence."
Your hostile reply to me seems unfriendly, unneccesary, and frankly, likely to make you look bad to other Wikipedians.
----- You are concerned that I am using an anonymous ISP account rather than a named account. Wikipedia has always welcomed anonymous/ISP users.
You have made a named account (User:I. Khider). This is good.
I am not using a named account. This is not bad.
(Wikipedia:Why create an account?)
----- You wrote "go vandalize someone else's entry". It's extremely important to accept that no article on Wikipedia is "your" article or "my" article or anybody else's article. (Wikipedia:Ownership of articles) Everything included in every Wikipedia article belongs to everyone and no one.
At the bottom of every edit window on Wikipedia is the reminder "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."
When people edit an article that you have worked on, they are probably trying in good faith to improve it. When people post here to your Talk page, they are probably trying in good faith to communicate with you.
It's considered very rude on Wikipedia to make accusations of "vandalism" without excellent reason. I have certainly never tried to vandalize anything on Wikipedia, either articles or Talk, and specifically including anything that pertains to you. (Wikipedia:Vandalism)
----- You wrote "You might want to delete every scientific and scholarly entry because they do not cite "mainstream sources" ". There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that need to be improved. This means that they need to be improved. If we point to any given article that could be improved, then it could be improved. The fact that there are 100,000 other articles that need to be improved doesn't affect that in any way. Nobody on Wikipedia can fix everything. We just try to do the best we can with what is in front of us. (Funny essay about this at WP:GOFISHING.)
----- You are trying to work on Wikipedia. This is good. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines which have been developed over several years and through many, many thousands of discussions. Other Wikipedians will expect you to follow these policies and guidelines. It will be helpful to you if you are familiar with these policies and guidelines and follow them. If you don't follow them, you are just going to make trouble for yourself. I'm trying to help you to avoid making trouble for yourself. If you don't want to take advice intended as helpful, or if you want to be hostile to people who are trying to help you, that is of course your decision.
----- Perhaps you are angry because you don't like Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, or way of doing things. None of these policies, guidelines, or ways of doing things are mine: they are Wikipedia's. I don't honestly care whether you follow them or not. However if you choose not to follow them, you will be working against many thousands of other Wikipedia editors who do follow them, and who will expect you to follow them. Do what you want.
----- I have now wasted an hour or so of my time trying to be helpful to you, and you don't appear to appreciate it. Okay. Again, please remember that there are thousands and thousands of other Wikipedia editors who will expect you to do things "the Wikipedia way", and your Wikipedia life will be a lot easier and more pleasant if you do.
I say again: Hi, welcome, and best wishes.
I don't think that I can put it any more plainly than that.
Have a good day. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muslimgauze anonymous editors

It's good to keep a cool head on this one. If one of these editors is a genuine vandal, seeing someone become angry at their actions may reward them. Of the two anons editing recently:

These IP addresses are on different continents, so they are not likely to be the same person. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Ibrahim, I understand your concerns about the recent vandalism on Muslimgauze but it's a relatively minor matter and and can be handled via reversions with little difficulty. I don't think this particular page has the traffic or the vandalism problems to warrant anything more at this point. I understand that you feel strongly about informing people about Bryn's life and works; I think all of us who have been involved in editing the main article and the discography feel the same way. But your tone in replies here and on the Islamaphonia e-list has been fairly combative ("scholarly jihad"?) and it would be helpful if you took a more moderate tone, especially in light of Wikipedia's role as a place for encyclopedic information and not a place to eulogize a favorite artist. dil (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:I._Khider&oldid=264472219"