User talk:Kritt

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

Hello Kritt, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Vbd (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Adding material[edit]

Hey, I'm a bit busy today, but I'll try to look at it as soon as I can. Best, Mackan79 12:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

reply[edit]

It's not just an individual, it's a book length study on the comparison written by two scholars who actually hold the view that the allegation is very valid. No way to spin this as NPOV.--Urthogie 22:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Because there is no rule about consistency at Wikipedia. Feel free to discuss the individual changes you think should be made on that article.--Urthogie 22:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit war, and try to maintain NPOV.Kritt 22:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of hard to do when you put something other than the article title in bold. Please stick to the talk page, there is relative consensus for this lead that you're disrupting.--Urthogie 22:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You started the article on Islamic Apartheid and should see the need to edit Wikipedia in NPOV fashion, please try to be consistent.Kritt 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, consistency is not a rule at Wikipedia. Feel free to bold allegations at that article, I support that.--Urthogie 22:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ther format you used at Allegations of Islamic apartheid is the best. We'll use it on Allegations of Israeli Apartheid too, it's most consise and clear for a lead. Kritt 22:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I created it two days ago. To say it's the best is like telling someone who dressed in two minutes they look great today. The Israeli apartheid way is the better format, and is actually literally in tune with Wikipedia style guidelines.--Urthogie 22:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the Islamic apartheid format is better. Can you show where the Wikipeida style guidelines support your view?Kritt 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, can I ask why you have almost no edits besides Israeli apartheid?--Urthogie 22:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. This article needs the work and that's what I'm trying to help on. I had no idea it would be so time-consuming to edit Wikipedia. I'd love to have time for more.Kritt 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it can get stressful, but remember, I'll listen to every logical point you make on the talk page. Scroll up and you'll see I've admitted I was wrong several times.--Urthogie 22:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

New material[edit]

Just to get back to you, I looked over it a little; I'm sure some of it can be incorporated, though I'm not sure I have the energy to do the brunt work. You're certainly right editing on these articles can be time consuming... If you'd like suggestions on something specific, though, feel free to ask, and I'll try to help as I can. Mackan79 02:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You might not want to throw that word around so much[edit]

The word Zionist tends to be thrown around the wikipedia a lot by, frankly, wackos, and despite Zionism being synonymous with Israeli nationalism, people have gotten banned for as much. Just a word to the wise.... -- Kendrick7talk

Re: Goodell[edit]

Hi there. All I'm saying is the term "controversial" implies a point of view...not everyone might call it that (though I would). Using it by itself in an article generally isn't advised, but if you can find a quote from a news article or other source, stick that citation in there, it would probably be okay (since you are then citing a third-party's opinion). It's just one of those things with Wikipedia. (And no, the existing citation which uses 'controversial' probably wouldn't be a good one to use, since it is ever so slightly biased against the subject, being a religious publication and all). Saying all that, I won't revert again, but I will still advise against using this term without a citation. Cheers! -- Huntster T@C 23:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Controversial" is one of those descriptive words that, as I see it, fifty percent of a population will agree with and fifty percent will disagree with (just to use those numbers as an example). So including it in an article will leave half of the readers wondering, "Who says it's controversial?" Including a citation of a specific example of an uninvolved critic or journalist calling it controversial provides that frame of reference. I know, it is mostly semantics, but I've learned that one has to be very careful of language used here on Wikipedia. -- Huntster T@C 04:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: YouTube[edit]

As for YouTube, external links or citations to videos can only be used if the owner of the video in question has placed it on the site, because it is otherwise a copyright violation (uploaded without permission of the owner). Usually, it is safe to cite a video when the uploader has the little "Director" icon under his username, but other than that, use a little common sense. If it's a TV show or a music video or whatever, and the owner or licensee isn't the uploader (as is the case for the vast majority of videos on YouTube and other video-sharing sites), don't use it. -- Huntster T@C 04:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

straw poll[edit]

There is a straw poll at Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#A_quick_straw_poll. Please share your views.--Urthogie 14:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Leila Farsakh[edit]

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Leila Farsakh, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. TewfikTalk 08:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)