User talk:Aylahs/Archive2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Aylahs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Ismailis
I did not vandalize the Ismaili article but rather gave the facts. I think we should discuss this prior to you taking upon yourself to delete my work.
Aga Khanis are a cult they dont allow muslims to pray in their halls, and they believe Aga Khan is God's something on earth so what is not true that I wrote.
Personal Attach
I did not make a personal attack, what I wrote is true and under the guidelines it should be included. If you took it as a personal attack I apologize. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.204.215 (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC).
JCI accreditation
Hi thanks for query re Aga_Khan_University_Hospital, Karachi, I would have thought that the JCI is appropriate to include in the Standards parameter. Indeed this was part of my reasons for creating this parameter when I upgraded the template (see Template Talk:Infobox Hospital#Certification of hospital vs just Trauma provision). I have gone ahead to implement this and also wikified the ISO 9001:2000 :-)
PS. The 'Address section' I think is problematic, in as much as wikipedia is not a directory listings (also the information is available to the reader via the external link to the hospital's own website). Suggest leave 'Address section' as is for now, whilst I seek further guidence on this... David Ruben Talk 04:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
posts
I have followed some of your posts, can you tell me who you are and what you do
trueblood 00:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism - If you dont agree with a post than use the dispute resolution rather than calling everying the user posts as vandalism. I have edited for over a year and never recommended anyone for a block, that is an extreme measure and should rarely be used.
trueblood 01:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I believe in the concept of Wikipedia as a credible encyclopedia that brings together individuals of different backgrounds, beliefs and perspectives, who are committed to the challenge of producing credible, constructive content with a neutral point of view.
- However, for this concept to work, wikipedians must be willing to put aside personal biases in their editing. Those who use vandalism to twist facts and produce misinformation or seek to impose their own beliefs and exclude or demean others, work against this spirit. I have found that such individuals typically avoid accountability by hiding behind a curtain of anonymous IPs, and jump between articles - editing destructively and pushing similar exclusivist points of view.
- In my own work I try to uphold the Wikipedia concept while combating vandalism where I can. There are plenty of forums on the web for futile debates between intolerant individuals constrained by their own narrow perspectives. Wikipedia must not become one of them. -- Aylahs (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Dispute resolution
Than dispute resolution should be used more often
Fact Checks
You should check the facts before making statements. This is not the wikipedia policy to make up facts, every fact that I placed on the articles is true. All you have to do is check the Wikipedia article on Aga Khan himself and cross reference the statements about Imams etc they match. For example the statement that there are Nizari Ismailis in Saudi Arabia is not true as Saudi Arabia does not allow prayer halls for anyone other than mosques. Than the section about the first Aga Khan leaving Iran is true, he left before of his problems with the Shah, this is stated under the article on his as well as his service to the British. So tell me which of the statements did you think was not true, than I will check it out
Hi Ayalhs,
- I noticed that you have previously worked on Template:Civil2. I thought you should know that it is currently proposed for deletion...
Thanks for taking the trouble to inform me. My edit was an attempt to solve a formatting problem I encountered – whether or not it's a good idea to keep or delete the template, I don't know! The TfD discussion, though, suggests not. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
AfD process
Hi thanks for query. The policy is set out at WP:AfD. Important aspects are WP:NOT and that WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY:
Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus...
The main point for appreciating the AfD discussion is that "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." so despite the "Keep" and "Delete" starts to each editors postings, what counts is the arguements put forward to advance the working towards a consensus that is then enacted by an admin. Hence any "votes" without supportive arguments may be discounted (its a discussion not a vote). Also AfD guidelines point out that "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight."
As for how the AfD is closed, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure for overview and Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus which concludes:
Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies, and where it is impossible that an article on any topic can exist without breaching these three policies, such policies must again be respected above other opinions.
Hope this all helps (espicially with regard to your concerns for articles belittling religious groups), but do ask if this still leaves you confused :-) David Ruben Talk 06:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 01:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Aga Khani AfD
You're welcome. And thanx for pointing this out to me in the first place. --Bluerain talk 10:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure if I like having Aga Khani redirect to Aga Khan, but it isn't much of a bother. You're welcome btw. --Bluerain talk 11:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Trueblood786, Islamic Cults, Aga Khani, et alia
I would like to help you with this issue, but I am swamped right now with a real life project. I hope to be back on Wikipedia by the 15th. Sorry, and good luck. -Eliyahu S Talk 20:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Islamic Cults
I guess you are correct there are no Islamic Cults, eventhough CNN and everyone else is listing the Shia cult in Najaf as a cult. People can live with their heads under the sand but Islam has just as many cults as any other relition. You won by convincing everyone that Islam is a monolithic religion with all peace and love, but 600 followers who wanted to bring the Shia Mahdi back to bring the end of the earth does in my opinion qualifies as a cult rather than a sect as you insisted. Good luck in future articles but the truth always wins