| Revision as of 01:53, 1 June 2007 editMatt57 (talk | contribs)8,665 edits →How is this not relevant?← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:58, 1 June 2007 edit undoIbn Shah (talk | contribs)131 edits →How is this not relevant?Next edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| :::::::Spurious allegations with no proof. ] 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | :::::::Spurious allegations with no proof. ] 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::You are definitely H.E. This has happened many times before.--] <sup>(]•])</sup> 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | ::::::::You are definitely H.E. This has happened many times before.--] <sup>(]•])</sup> 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::I don't really know what you're talking about but perhaps you should provide some proof. ] 01:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Now, your problem was that you the content was not relevant. If it was not relevant before, why is it now? The text is still the same, isnt it? --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 23:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | Now, your problem was that you the content was not relevant. If it was not relevant before, why is it now? The text is still the same, isnt it? --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 23:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :It is relevant because an editor a reference with that quote that discussed Islamophobia as well. The . I really don't see why this is difficult for you to understand. ] 01:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | :It is relevant because an editor a reference with that quote that discussed Islamophobia as well. The . I really don't see why this is difficult for you to understand. ] 01:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 36: | Line 37: | ||
| :::"It" is the quote that I removed at the time - obvious, is it not? ] 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | :::"It" is the quote that I removed at the time - obvious, is it not? ] 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::So you're saying the quote is not relevant because the referenced article doesnt mention "Islamophobia"? --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | ::::So you're saying the quote is not relevant because the referenced article doesnt mention "Islamophobia"? --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::::The quote '''was''' not relevant when the referenced article did not mention Islam or Islamophobia. The quote '''became''' relevant when a new referenced article discussed Islamophobia. ] 01:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:58, 1 June 2007
Welcome!
Hello, Ibn Shah, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! From: (→Netscott) 16:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion
When you engage in revert warring, like you did on Islamophobia, you should try to make your reasons known on the article talk page. Misplaced Pages is a place where people with different points of view and ideologies try to find a way to collaborate, and reverting without engaging in discussion usually just makes things worse. Anyway, welcome to Misplaced Pages & happy editing! JACOPLANE • 2007-03-27 20:04
- Well, precisely because you are new, so you might not be aware of Misplaced Pages etiquette. More experienced users should know better, and I certainly frown upon revert warring from them too. I was just trying to be helpful, and I think you will find that I am correct: being confrontational on Misplaced Pages rather than engaging in dialogue will not help you get the results you desire. Especially on an article as emotionally charged as Islamophobia, this will help you deal with others that you might not agree with. Anyway, I can tell you don' appreciate my advice, so from now on I'll leave you alone. JACOPLANE • 2007-03-27 20:14
FFI
No worries, your commentary is a bit adversarial though. You are always welcome to adjust it if you decide later that it was "too much". (→Netscott) 03:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Adversarial towards those who don't hate the site. I don't happen to agree with the site myself but I can still respect those who see value in documenting it. (→Netscott) 03:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, if you didn't know, Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project. Best to try to remain as civil as possible when communicating with other editors for you may not know what their own personal view is on a given topic. (→Netscott) 03:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
How is this not relevant?
In this edit, you removed valid RELEVANT sourced content from Misplaced Pages. Please explain how the removed content was not relevant. --Matt57 13:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- It was not relevant because the source cited did not mention Islamophobia at all. A new source which then satisfied that criterion was found by another editor. I believe this is covered in the original research policy of Misplaced Pages. You should probably read the discussions on the talk pages before asking questions. And I apologize for the delay in my reply. Ibn Shah 01:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- No. The article doesnt have to have the word "Islamophobia" at all. There could be an article on "Trees" and I could cite a source which only mentions "Bark", but not the word "tree". That doesnt mean the source is not relevant. The only issue here is: Is the content being put in relevant to the article? And it was.--Matt57 21:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Your analogy is not appropriate in this context. You cannot tell me that a person who makes argument A against idea B should be presented an article if idea B is not present within the original source at all. Then how do you know that the person is arguing against idea B? That would be like you writing a book against Islam, and then me taking the some of your arguments and using them against Christianity on Misplaced Pages. As valid as those arguments may be against religion X, it's still an original synthesis of ideas, and the original research policy forbids that. Ibn Shah 22:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Idea B was being represented in this case becuase 1) it was the same text before and after the reference change. 2) It was relating to Islamophobia. From your edits it seems like you're a seasoned user who has been editing bere before. Also interesting is the RV that came right after you had already reverted it 3 times. It looks like a calculated revertion from an anon IP sock to bypass the 3RR violation. I'm not 100% sure that that anon IP was you as well but that its very interesting that after 3 reverts of the same content removal by you, the 4th was from an IP. And in the end, the text stayed so all these efforts to remove the content were not useful. Ah, infact, if you look at the history of the article, there are a number of various IP edits (could be proxies by anonymous browsers) all focused on removing the content being removed by your username. Interesting. --Matt57 23:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Don't plague me with ridiculous theories unless you have proof. There are other people out there that may have the same opinion. In fact it was another editor who removed the section even before I did. "Seasoned Editor"? I've been reading discussions here for two months. Understanding how this place operates is really not that hard. Ibn Shah 01:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but as I said, a 4th and even 5th and 6th reverts from anon IP's that come right after your 3rd revert are a little suspicious. You know that a 4th revert will violate the 3RR rule. --Matt57 01:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Spurious allegations with no proof. Ibn Shah 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- You are definitely H.E. This has happened many times before.--Matt57 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really know what you're talking about but perhaps you should provide some proof. Ibn Shah 01:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- You are definitely H.E. This has happened many times before.--Matt57 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Spurious allegations with no proof. Ibn Shah 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but as I said, a 4th and even 5th and 6th reverts from anon IP's that come right after your 3rd revert are a little suspicious. You know that a 4th revert will violate the 3RR rule. --Matt57 01:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Don't plague me with ridiculous theories unless you have proof. There are other people out there that may have the same opinion. In fact it was another editor who removed the section even before I did. "Seasoned Editor"? I've been reading discussions here for two months. Understanding how this place operates is really not that hard. Ibn Shah 01:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Idea B was being represented in this case becuase 1) it was the same text before and after the reference change. 2) It was relating to Islamophobia. From your edits it seems like you're a seasoned user who has been editing bere before. Also interesting is the RV that came right after you had already reverted it 3 times. It looks like a calculated revertion from an anon IP sock to bypass the 3RR violation. I'm not 100% sure that that anon IP was you as well but that its very interesting that after 3 reverts of the same content removal by you, the 4th was from an IP. And in the end, the text stayed so all these efforts to remove the content were not useful. Ah, infact, if you look at the history of the article, there are a number of various IP edits (could be proxies by anonymous browsers) all focused on removing the content being removed by your username. Interesting. --Matt57 23:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Your analogy is not appropriate in this context. You cannot tell me that a person who makes argument A against idea B should be presented an article if idea B is not present within the original source at all. Then how do you know that the person is arguing against idea B? That would be like you writing a book against Islam, and then me taking the some of your arguments and using them against Christianity on Misplaced Pages. As valid as those arguments may be against religion X, it's still an original synthesis of ideas, and the original research policy forbids that. Ibn Shah 22:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- No. The article doesnt have to have the word "Islamophobia" at all. There could be an article on "Trees" and I could cite a source which only mentions "Bark", but not the word "tree". That doesnt mean the source is not relevant. The only issue here is: Is the content being put in relevant to the article? And it was.--Matt57 21:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Now, your problem was that you said the content was not relevant. If it was not relevant before, why is it now? The text is still the same, isnt it? --Matt57 23:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is relevant because an editor inserted a reference with that quote that discussed Islamophobia as well. The previous reference did not discuss Islam or Islamophobia. I really don't see why this is difficult for you to understand. Ibn Shah 01:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I feel you're another sock of His Excellency, but thats ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now. I'll ask you again: You had removed the content saying: "well sourced" does not matter when it is not relevant." . What exactly was not relevant? --Matt57 01:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- "It" is the quote that I removed at the time - obvious, is it not? Ibn Shah 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- So you're saying the quote is not relevant because the referenced article doesnt mention "Islamophobia"? --Matt57 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- The quote was not relevant when the referenced article did not mention Islam or Islamophobia. The quote became relevant when a new referenced article discussed Islamophobia. Ibn Shah 01:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- So you're saying the quote is not relevant because the referenced article doesnt mention "Islamophobia"? --Matt57 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- "It" is the quote that I removed at the time - obvious, is it not? Ibn Shah 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I feel you're another sock of His Excellency, but thats ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now. I'll ask you again: You had removed the content saying: "well sourced" does not matter when it is not relevant." . What exactly was not relevant? --Matt57 01:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)