User talk:Riskbreaker2987

UDS

Can you outline your specific neutrality objections regarding the traditions bit of the UDS article please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.174.70 (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

		The PCHS-NJROTC Abuse Report and Antivandal Barnstar
		For reverting vandalism to Port Charlotte High School!

GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Englewood, Florida Edits

I don't know if this is where I should put this, but I can vouch for this wikipedia update. I live in the neighborhood of "Jack Wayne" (I live on Beardsley St in Englewood and I have definitely felt intimidated when dealing when him. If you would like me to document any of this I can. I only noticed this when I searched "Englewood,FL" tonight and noticed this was reversed in the history search.

I don't know who it is that left the above comment, but I greatly appreciate you commenting to find out why I made the change I did. While I greatly appreciate your attempts to improve the quality of wikipedia, it's important to recognize that wikipedia is used by people around the world to receive quality, accurate, reputable, and articulate information. While I can't confirm or deny the existance of the "Jack Wayne" you brought up in your edits, it's clear from the information that you added that it doesn't meet the guidline of Wikipedia:Notability. Have a look at that link to see the types of things that should be included in articles. Again, I certainly appreciate your attempts to improve the article, but make sure that the information added would be the kind of things that people would be interested in reading if they opened a printed encyclopedia article on Englewood. Riskbreaker2987 (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a belated 'you're welcome'

A very belated thanks for your thanks way back in July. I was pulled away from web work by lots of changes at work -- including the sudden death of Doug Lee -- but now I'm again able to refocus on the web. Many, many thanks for your help on the SU site. It would not exist without you. I've had a student intern start bringing site content up to date in accordance with Wikipedia's best practices for universities, and I've started plugging in new info and references on the page. Not finished yet. Going to have student gov review their text, and student life look over theirs, and ditto for res life and athletics. Your suggestions and edits welcome! Stetson45 (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

battle of yarmouk

Walikumsalam, thanks for sharing your views, i wanna clear some misconceptions here, first of all, tabari has not been used as a primary source for the battle in the article (look again !). Its mentioned in the primary sources section just as a reference of the early islamic history (for those readers who wanna read more on islamic history). There is hardly any reference to tabari in the article its self, and this is not because tabari is unreliable but its becoz in tabari's work hardly one page is dedicated to battle of yarmouk which is almost with out details, tabari was a persian historian and his work reflects his geographical origin. His work contain the most detailed accounts of the conquest and political and military administration of persian territories, he worked on the detailed history of his country, and relied only on brief accounts of the conquest of west. So if you wanna find out some thing about the conquest on roman front, you will definitely not select tabari for it.

Regards.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ibn ishaq is for further reading for those who are interested in early islamic history, its kinda tradition to give references for further reading.

Any ways, nice to know that the author of that book is your phd supervisor, then you can have access to those early byzantine and armenian sources from which he quoted the stuff.

I cant understand why you think tabari is unreliable, the only historians we have got is tabari, baladhuri and waqidi, who have narrated the early islamic history. if you discard them, it means you erase islamic history, all that wht remains are those pathetic patches of byzantine and armenain historians. I would go to the approach that most of the scholars of islamic history (both eastern and western) exercise, i.e use them with cautions, use your own common sense, and compare them with relative events. I like Akram because he did a marvelous research work on not only the historical sources but also on the geographical locations of the campaigns by personally visiting them. He have in several places disagreed with one historian and supported the other in the light of what i call sense of historical events. Nicolle did the same, he have elaborated the whole campaign in the light of his knowledge of the byzatine warfare, and it turns out from his research that most of the events and dates mentioned by the early islamic historians (who are said to have written that all 250 years after the events) were remarkably accurate in many cases.

regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stetson: liberal arts

Check this: http://www.stetson.edu/artsci/home/libartcurric.php --von Tamm (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Riskbreaker2987 (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Riskbreaker2987. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]