User talk:Adamrce

Feel free to leave a message below. I value all feedback, so if I'm doing something wrong, doing something you disagree with (even if it is consistent with policy), or even if it is just something you think I could be doing better, please let me know :)

This is Adamrce's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Archives

1, 2, 3

Help!

Not to interrupt your other editing but I really would like it if you could help out with edits to the following pages:

The prophet pages are being forsaken while they are hugely important; your help would be wonderful! I edited Elijah and Islamic view of Solomon and I think Islamic view of Abraham is finally getting somewhere. Please help!--Imadjafar(talk) 18:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saffron terror

Saffron terror is not religious in the slightest. Actually, that's what those of us working on the article have been trying so carefully to keep away from, even adding a line at the top of Category:Hindu terrorism to explain that it is not for religious terrorism articles. Putting it in that spot on Template:Terrorism is incorrect and promoting a falsehood. Saffron/Hindu terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with Hinduism, it has to do with Hindutva, which is political nationalism. I am going to revert you on the template now. Silverseren^C 08:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I've always respected your note, but we can't make research or provide sources to justify/unjustify content on a NAV template. I won't revert you, but keep in mind that the article needs to be fixed immediately/soonest :p. The article is still under "Category:Religious_terrorism" (I almost put my talkpage under religions terrorism ;). You can create another category of "Hindu terrorism" under politic terrorism or something. Again, the template should only match the article's categories, so please try to fix it to avoid conflicts with someone else. You can't just explain it in the discussion page. Take care and happy editing... ~ AdvertAdam^talk 08:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Hindu terrorism" is still under "religious terrorism", not only "religious violence" under "religious terrorism". Anyways, I'll take a look thru their talkpages, as it really is a big mess. You've been in multiple dead-end discussions! ~ AdvertAdam^talk 09:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for letting me know, I would have never caught that otherwise. Someone was apparently confused back when I created the category and added those cats to it. The Saffron terror article really explains it all, it's not religious in the slightest. Silverseren^C 10:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

I like this , i see your also trying to get support for it. At least your taking me seriously as a Wikipedian (i am happy at how much you think about me). i have only been involved with content disagreements with you, hardly any violation of wiki policies that require a ban. Its also ironic that you accuse me of certain policy violations--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good... It's still your opinion tho. Oh, and I haven't asked for a ban, silly. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 05:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cossde/Girabe

Well spotted on the previous SPI. I'm glad I'm not going mad with paranoia! I have opened a new SPI for the above users. I've not done this before - hopefully I have provided enough evidence. You are welcome to comment/provide additional evidence.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 2009 case is already convicted; however, I just said that a new case needs to be open because you need to point-out the sock-master. The previous case was regarding three other accounts. Looks good to me, and keep the golden-eye open. I've added a bit of disrespect, also. Thanks... ~ AdvertAdam^talk 10:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A question and a note

Q: Can't figure out what's going on on the Islam page. Would you please put something on the talk page to help me understand why you think the point about Islam not being named for a person [or deity?] is important? I have to say I came to your user page to see if you seem reasonable -- and you do. So why not post your rationale?

N: On your user page I see "I continually point out to the versus that they ignore, or don't understand . . ." -- do you want "point out the verses" rather than "versus" there? Sorry if I'm missing the point. -- Thanks -- Jo3sampl (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re, Q: A brief explanation for you only, and I'm confirming, for you... It was a sourced comparative introductory sentence "bla bla..., like most major religions." An editor disputed the second part saying that "Sikhism" is not named after...bla. I think he was confused, or haven't realized, that Sikhism was not included because it's not a major religion and the sentence didn't mention "all". When I removed the second part, it was reverted as if the disputer still disliked it. Anyways, I won't waste my time on a silly sentence, so I won't add it there. The mistake I know I've done is adding it in the lead, at first. If others don't like it, it's fine with me (but I don't accept un-reasoned reverts).

Ah -- thanks -- Jo3sampl (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re, N: Hehe, sometimes I reply fast from my phone and fail to re-read. That was actually personal activities regarding my research. It was approved by my University and is available in the Library, even though my instructor was Atheist :p. She liked it tho. Anyways, again, those are personal statements that I don't mix with my Wikipedia editing. I'm always open about it off-Wikipedia.
Take care and thanks for asking. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 22:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan Civil War

Sorry for mistake.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 11:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:p ~ AdvertAdam^talk

Text striking and deletion etc.

Hi

RE: Talk:Muammar Gaddafi Just wanted to remind you of the policy on other people's article-talk page posts Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others.27 comments.

I have un-stricken the text and archived it as per guidelines to Talk:Muammar_Gaddafi/Archive_4#Removed_from_talk_page_23-07-201. I do not assume that you want your comments moved, but have copied them there as well so that you may delete your own comment knowing it is already archived if you so wish :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, hatting/collapsing is the preferred method in Talk pages, but generally we just let what others say in Talk pages stand as it was written. -- Avanu (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you saw the policy above. Almost all the comments by this user ain't related to the talkpage, nor discussion, like this one: "I can't understand why Mrs Thatcher didn't kill Gaddafi 25 years ago when he was openly arming the IRA, as well as many other terrorist organizations all over the world". ~ AdvertAdam^talk 20:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sounds fair to me :). I did that after the above editor reverted my removal, but I'll consider archiving instead (if needed). Nice nose ;¬) ~ AdvertAdam^talk 20:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, those other faces such as :) always seem to me to be gurning lol - My version has a lovely strong aqualine nose which gives it respect and an air of... lets face it, I just wanted something that was different lol. I do have some others though: Sleeping ¦¬( and indifference ¦¬| and feline ∑:¬⟩

Have you seen the image at the bottom right of my userpage (from 1881)?

@Avanu, in this case the problem was getting a little convoluted - as the comment had been removed, restored, stricken, and debated - and I felt it was best to remove it to the archive to prevent any issues arising that might get the best of intentioned editors into any trouble. I had already placed a note about "not using the talk page as a forum" some days previously. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kool. They're lovely, and the 1881, ugh o.O... Good work :) ~ AdvertAdam^talk

Santur

Dear Adam,

I modified the santur page so that it is representative of the different santurs out there. I included citations and added a talk to the discussion page. This is not emotionally and politically motivated since I am not Babylonian and Babylon doesn't exist anymore. It's just that the real history of this instrument wasn't on this important page.

Thanks! Marc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.65.117 (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, interesting. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 20:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/Moses and the Israelites served Amenemhet III during the 12th dynasty of Egypt and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/An alternative view of the 3rd dynasty of Egypt for some context. Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :). I didn't wanna discourage the editor on my summary, I would of said "IT'S AWFULLLLL". ~ AdvertAdam^talk 08:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation

I didn't remove sourced material, I removed what wasn't in the source provided. Big difference. There was no mention in this particular source of rebel forces having success in securing battlegrounds of key cities except that they took a few checkpoints in no-mans land between Zliten and Misrata. And I didn't violate the OR rule because my sentence was properly sourced with what the admiral said, that the campaign is at a stalemate. I was offended by your accusation considering I am currently fighting a number of editors who are trying to remove from the article sourced information and phrase things to their own POV because I am trying to keep up the neutrality of Wikipedia. EkoGraf (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same thing: there where two sentences from the same source, you left one and removed another. Ain't that removing sourced material? Don't try to flip the coin, and I'm still with my words. If you don't get it, I'll quote it here for you if you'd like.

You also violated WP:SYNTH, when you removed that half-of-the-story and added another half from another source to push your-own conclusion. If you re-read WP:NPOV, you'll understand that you can't take one-side of the story. I fixed the paragraph, based on mentioning both stories on the existing source and your source. Any questions? I can bring the whole text here... ~ AdvertAdam^talk 16:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not my conclusion, I removed the part that wasn't even in the source. Again, there was no mention in this particular source of rebels having secured battlegrounds of key cities, what the source did say was that they took only a few checkpoints in no-mans-land. And I wasn't pushing my personal point of view by adding the new source. I added the new source because it was an updated (three weeks after the previous source) point of view of the top American military officer. If you have a problem with his point of view that's a whole 'nother matter. In any case, Geromasis had the right idea by totaly removing that paragraph from the lead since opinions of that kind should be mentioned in that kind of article but not in the lead. EkoGraf (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the paragraph, but care about insistent denials. Did I ever dispute your source? NO! Did I remove it? NO! Here's the sentence from the first source: "The attempt by Qaddafi to retake rebel territory has “fallen apart” as opposition forces capture key cities." ~ AdvertAdam^talk 18:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, take it easy, we're not in a life and death strugle here. :D Hmmm, actualy they haven't taken any cities for two and a half months now since Misrata back in May, so by all accounts that reporter is grossly missinformed. :) They have only taken villages and small towns in the mountains of no more than a few thousand people. Wouldn't call that cities. As far as key goes. They haven't taken the key town of Gharyan (gateway to Tripoli from the south), they haven't taken the key town of Zawiyah (gateway to Tripoli from the west), they haven't taken the key town of Zliten (gateway to Tripoli from the east), they haven't taken the most importantly key town of Brega (gateway to west from east Libya). There is a reason the word stalemate is used so much. In any case lets leave it be as it is and cool our heads for a while. Ok mate? See ya! ;) EkoGraf (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, you're funny dude. I'm not mad, but all human make mistakes. The first thing I do is apologize or at least avoid the matter, so insistence of accusations that I falsely accuse others is simi-insulting to me (personally). Anyways, it's no big deal, and I never liked the paragraph anyways. When it comes to editing, who cares about those details and original research. We just have to present whatever sources we have there, without being picky. Actually your second false claim about the reporter mistaken is simply wrong, as that was a statement from the "NATO Secretary General" :p. Actually, key cities doesn't even mean major cities "diplomatically", but key areas "geographically" (military-wise). Take care and stay out of trouble... I'm watching you jkjk, see ya around ~ AdvertAdam^talk 08:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring talk page

In regard to your recent ediit here the material from a book used in Talk:Jihad#Rules of war according to Islamic law in disharmony with BBC's strict rules is not being distorted by original research. I have already answered you objection a long time ago, and you should at least respond on the talk page before you revert edits, thanks. Davidelah (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What has your source, in the talkpage, have do with my revert. I reverted your unjustified removal of well-sourced material, based on your opinion from some other source. Anyways, this RSN already answered your concerns. So, don't do that again, please :). ~ AdvertAdam^talk 07:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what did you mean by WP:OR in your summary? Davidelah (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]