User talk:Galizia - Revision history

MZMcBride: bug!

2013-09-11T04:32:49Z

bug!

← Previous revision	Revision as of 04:32, 11 September 2013
(No difference)

142.177.75.114 at 16:45, 16 October 2003

2003-10-16T16:45:42Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 16:45, 16 October 2003
Line 18:		Line 18:
	Hi Galizia,		Hi Galizia,

	Your recent edit to [[Islamic fundamentalism]] can use another revision. The sentence seems to say the same thing twice. I think I know what you're trying to say about Islamism not always being violent, but something more needs to be inserted into that sentence to make it worth reading, now that the (seemingly political) statement about violence has been removed.		Your recent edit to [[Islamic fundamentalism]] can use another revision. The sentence seems to say the same thing twice. I think I know what you're trying to say about Islamism not always being violent, but something more needs to be inserted into that sentence to make it worth reading, now that the (seemingly political) statement about violence has been removed. Cheers, [[User:Silver Maple\|Silver Maple]]

			:This has now been fixed. However, there are some users attempting to deliberately portray Islamic fundamentalism as inherently violent. With the recent departure of one of them, it may be possible to regain balance on these issues.
	Cheers,

			:To fix this [[systemic bias]], please considering joining [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam]] and help remove the bias that has built up here due to lack of Muslim help editing. Please also recruit scholars and fellow Muslims to ensure scholarly accuracy. Perhaps we must all re-read [[The Muqadimmah]]! - an anonymous [[Asharite]]
	[[User:Silver Maple\|Silver Maple]]

Silver Maple: recent edit to Islamic Fundamentalism

2003-06-24T22:38:15Z

recent edit to Islamic Fundamentalism

← Previous revision		Revision as of 22:38, 24 June 2003
Line 12:		Line 12:
	Hi, Galizia		Hi, Galizia
	What was your intention with your edit of the [[Apartheid]] article? I have reverted it because it just seemed to duplicate parts of the article in a different order. [[User:GrahamN\|GrahamN]] 18:26 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)		What was your intention with your edit of the [[Apartheid]] article? I have reverted it because it just seemed to duplicate parts of the article in a different order. [[User:GrahamN\|GrahamN]] 18:26 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)


			----

			Hi Galizia,

			Your recent edit to [[Islamic fundamentalism]] can use another revision. The sentence seems to say the same thing twice. I think I know what you're trying to say about Islamism not always being violent, but something more needs to be inserted into that sentence to make it worth reading, now that the (seemingly political) statement about violence has been removed.

			Cheers,

			[[User:Silver Maple\|Silver Maple]]

GrahamN: Re the Apartheid article

2003-02-11T18:26:40Z

Re the Apartheid article

← Previous revision		Revision as of 18:26, 11 February 2003
Line 6:		Line 6:

	I like what you did at [[holocaust denial]]: your edit conforms to the [[NPOV]] because you attributed the view properly: "Historians generally agree". You also left room for the alternate viewpoint (which is in my not-so-humble-opinion totally indefensible). Now readers are free to choose whether to side with most historians or some Arabs, and the Wikipedia didn't tell them which to believe. It just accurately reported on who says what. [[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]]		I like what you did at [[holocaust denial]]: your edit conforms to the [[NPOV]] because you attributed the view properly: "Historians generally agree". You also left room for the alternate viewpoint (which is in my not-so-humble-opinion totally indefensible). Now readers are free to choose whether to side with most historians or some Arabs, and the Wikipedia didn't tell them which to believe. It just accurately reported on who says what. [[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]]


			----

			Hi, Galizia
			What was your intention with your edit of the [[Apartheid]] article? I have reverted it because it just seemed to duplicate parts of the article in a different order. [[User:GrahamN\|GrahamN]] 18:26 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Ed Poor: nice work, Galizia

2002-07-29T10:51:17Z

nice work, Galizia

← Previous revision		Revision as of 10:51, 29 July 2002
Line 4:		Line 4:

	This may seem puzzling to you, but if your read the [[NPOV]] policy article, it might become clearer, and lots of us will be happy to answer any questions you may have. [[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]]		This may seem puzzling to you, but if your read the [[NPOV]] policy article, it might become clearer, and lots of us will be happy to answer any questions you may have. [[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]]

			I like what you did at [[holocaust denial]]: your edit conforms to the [[NPOV]] because you attributed the view properly: "Historians generally agree". You also left room for the alternate viewpoint (which is in my not-so-humble-opinion totally indefensible). Now readers are free to choose whether to side with most historians or some Arabs, and the Wikipedia didn't tell them which to believe. It just accurately reported on who says what. [[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]]

Ed Poor at 10:27, 29 July 2002

2002-07-29T10:27:43Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 10:27, 29 July 2002
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Hi, Galizia. I'm about to revert your last edit, but I'd like to explain why first.		Hi, Galizia. I'm about to revert your last edit, but I'd like to explain why first.

	While I do agree that [[holocaust ~~revision~~]] is a false refutation, it is nevertheless the policy of Wikipedia not to take sides in controversies. We must therefore say that it is CONSIDERED false by SOMEONE, instead of flatly asserting that it is false.		While I do agree that [[holocaust denial]] is a false refutation, it is nevertheless the policy of Wikipedia not to take sides in controversies. We must therefore say that it is CONSIDERED false by SOMEONE, instead of flatly asserting that it is false.

	This may seem puzzling to you, but if your read the [[NPOV]] policy article, it might become clearer, and lots of us will be happy to answer any questions you may have. [[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]]		This may seem puzzling to you, but if your read the [[NPOV]] policy article, it might become clearer, and lots of us will be happy to answer any questions you may have. [[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]]

Ed Poor: sorry, I have to revert

2002-07-29T10:27:23Z

sorry, I have to revert

New page

Hi, Galizia. I'm about to revert your last edit, but I'd like to explain why first.

While I do agree that [[holocaust revision]] is a false refutation, it is nevertheless the policy of Wikipedia not to take sides in controversies. We must therefore say that it is CONSIDERED false by SOMEONE, instead of flatly asserting that it is false.

This may seem puzzling to you, but if your read the [[NPOV]] policy article, it might become clearer, and lots of us will be happy to answer any questions you may have. [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]]