User talk:NapoleansSword

Hi NapoleansSword, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes(~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
If you'd like to tell us about yourself and meet other new users, be sure to introduce yourself at our new user log.

Good luck, and have fun. --Sefringle 02:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-MAIL NAPOLEAN'S SWORD

Feel free to e-mail me in case you need me for emergencies.

signature

In the future when you post messages on wikipedia please sign your name with ~~~~. Thank you.--Sefringle^Talk 04:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use adequate edit summaries

"Article layout" has nothing to do with deleting a whole paragraph of text. Do not use deceptive edit summaries on Islam in the United States or any other entry, please. It simply makes the process here that much more difficult. Cheers.PelleSmith 18:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pelle, the intention of my revert is to restore the article layout which has been messed up since the last few edits. Even your current edit where in you reverted my edit has again messed up the layout. If you can see the article now, a huge chunk of the article has gone into the portion after the references (notes) down below. I do not know which portion I deleted, however my intention is not to delete any text. Its possible that some text might get deleted when I revert because its hard to restore the article again and compare back to what was added since the previous edits were made with the layout error. I am reverting again to a point where edits can be made without the layout error. feel free to add anything after that point. I intend to add something too and I will make an extra edit after reverting to the proper layout so that there is no confusion. thanks NapoleansSword 20:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pelle, I realized on comparing edits that while I was restoring the layout yesterday the "Islamic Relief" passage had gotten deleted. It was not my intention, just a oversight. Rest assured that the "Proper Layout" edit includes that passage and the previous edits prior to yours (since your edit had a bad layout too). I changed the language to accomodate your concerns. Feel free to edit but please make sure that your further edits don't damage the passage layout. thanks NapoleansSword 21:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has many articles

I just noticed all your contributions so far have been to only one article. Just so you know, there are other articles that you are welcome to edit as well.--Sefringle^Talk 05:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I hardly get time to get on wikipedia. The reason for my contributions for that article is that I had done some research about the issue in college. When I read the article the first time, I realized that the article was clearly distorted and many facts were not mentioned or inaccurately presented. I just wanted to use my previous knowledge on the subject to make this article a bit better. NapoleansSword 02:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Most people edit what they have knowledge in or are intrested in. --Sefringle^Talk 04:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your edits.

Please sign your comments on the talk page of Islam in the United States. Thank you.PelleSmith 16:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I forgot to sign one comment. wasnt intended. NapoleansSword 18:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam

Hi, NapoleansSword. I see you're fairly new here; welcome to Wikipedia. Although WP:3RR only explicitly prohibits exceeding three reverts in 24 hours, it's not generally advisable to edit-war against consensus, as you have on Islam today. The sources you've provided are interesting, but are not of high enough quality, and the material too recentist, to belong in this featured article. I am certain that everyone who has been involved in this article, including those who might be inclined to sympathize with your point of view along with those who aren't, will agree on this.
Also, not to bother you, but re your username, do you mean Napoleon's sword? If the spelling discrepancy is untintentional, we can fix it if you like.Proabivouac 01:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your friendly warning. However, let me clarify that I reverted only once and never indulged in a edit war. You reverted my edit saying that the front page source isnt a good source, so I added an additional source. Addition of information is not a revert. I reverted another users edit (my first revert) after I responded to him in talk. Thanks and yes it implies Napolean's sword but wikipedia didnt allow me to register a username with a ' sign.NapoleansSword 01:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've not broken WP:3RR, however you eventually may if something isn't cleared up: "You reverted my edit saying that the front page source isnt a good source, so I added an additional source. Addition of information is not a revert." No, the addition of the new information isn't a revert, but the restoration of what was just removed is. Not trying to wikilawyer you, but you need to know this or you may one day violate the rule based on this misconception. Speaking generally, the addition of new information may, in some cases, be considered a revert if it might be considered a substitute for something which was removed before. If you feel like you're going back and forth with someone on something, you're probably reverting, and if a reviewing administrator looking at the situation gets that same impression, they may count it as a revert even if it "technically" wasn't.

As for the spelling, I meant "Napoleon" as opposed to "Napolean." The famous Frenchman has two o's, and no a's.Proabivouac 01:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The website you linked to has the author's email. You could email him and ask how you can access the original pentagon report. Arrow740 08:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

I wasn't sure if you wanted this on your user page right now, as you don't have a bio written, so I am moving it here. If you prefer otherwise, please revert me.--Sefringle^Talk 01:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiProject:Islam Barnstar
		This Barnstar is awarded to NapoleansSword for his contributions and improvements to the Islam in the United States article Sefringle^Talk 03:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem..its all good... Thanks :)

Islam in the United States

Congratulations, NS, for the Barnstar. I want to discuss the passage you restored after another editor (BanyanTree) replaced it with a link directly to the cited report. You state that there is lots of "sourced data" in the passage you want to keep, but it's just ephemeral journalism. I think BanyanTree is right about this one. Come talk it over, OK? Talk:Islam in the United States#paragraph removal. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 04:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I just wandered back to the article to find myself reverted. Could you address the reasoning I state on the talk page, as Alarob notes above? If there is no response, I will assume that you accept the reasoning and are OK with removing the paragraph. Thanks, Banyan Tree 03:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didnt login for 2-3 days...I don't find time these days to contribute to wikipedia. I'll take a look right away. Thanks NapoleansSword 05:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airports

I noticed you added a section on the airport footbath controversies in the renovations. You may wish to add a section on that to the airport aritcles as well. Yahel Guhan 04:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, it needs to be added. I will definitely try and add it or if anyone else wants to go ahead and take the initiative, ill support it. Thanks. NapoleansSword 06:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please report on my behavior in the proper venues

Please report me to an administrator or take out and RFC if you think my behavior or my commentary is a problem. Entry talk pages are simply not the appropriate forum to discuss editor behavior. Thanks.PelleSmith 03:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have pointed out your behavior in places where you attacked me. You attacked me on the Talk page of Islam in the US and in response to your post, I just pointed out your incivility. Instead of asking me to "complain at appropriate places" why dont you just start behaving in the 'wikipedia' spirit and stop personal attacks and rude/uncivil comments? Wouldnt that be a little easier? NapoleansSword 03:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm behaving poorly towards you at all, but that doesn't change the fact that entry talk pages are not for such commentary. If you want to take it up on my talk page fine, no complaints here. However, if you feel this strongly about it then I'm simply suggesting that there are even more appropriate places. Cheers.PelleSmith 03:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagon view

I have yet to hear back from you after my last response about the Pentagon view. Please explain to me how your example doesn't actually prove my point as I suggest on the talk page. Thanks.PelleSmith 17:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already mentioned my views atleast 3-4 times. I do not wish to repeat myself over and over. Again, since you have been uncivil with me and stated that you would continue doing that as long as I don't make sense to you, I do not think it is in the good interest of wikipedia that we do not engage in a discussion. This will help to maintain an atmosphere of civility in the discussions here. Also, I do not want to strain myself by getting attacked again. It is very difficult to maintain calm after being called absurd, amateur etc but I am trying to do so in the best interest of wikipedia and wikipedians. NapoleansSword 17:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you evading my discussion? I will remove this material once again as relevancy has yet to be established. Unless you get some action taken against me--which would be a validation from the administrative perspective that you are right about all or some of your accusations about my violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA--I will continue to try as best I can to discuss content matters with you. Avoiding the discussion of content matters based upon what you claim about my behavior in the past seems rather odd. If you do not want to engage the discussion about the relevancy of that material I will have to assume you have no further rebuttals. Cheers.PelleSmith 17:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeating the same point again and again. I have explained that this is an opinion of a respectable American institution consisting of Americans about one of the religion practised in the USA. You are trying to get me to repeat the same thing over and over until I get tired of replying after which you will conveniently say that there are no rebuttals. This kind of sneaky approach is really not appreciable. That material must stay. NapoleansSword 21:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clashing views (from Islam in the United States)

Hi, NS. Thanks for adding this comment:

I think this discussion is getting too long for a entry on this talkpage..but since its already here, i would give a last short comment. You have made this paragraph based on the conviction you have of me and others and the paragraph is mocking me of having close to 'nazi' views. When you further says that you are not being funny implies that you are serious in implying that I have neo-nazi views (although you didnt say it explicitly your paragraph implies that). I would say again that I did not put any of my own views in the article, they were all sourced. Now many of my sourced statements have been moved or rewritten to twist facts. Not really appreciable.

My thoughts:

I don't see how anything I wrote attributes 'nazi' views to you or anyone else. Like I said, I have acquaintances who would take every word of that paragraph seriously. Maybe you think it's absurd, but if so, it's helpful to know that. You could just say, "I think that paragraph is absurd." You could even add, "I'm offended that you think those are my views." Or you could say, "I agree with some of that, but other parts are absurd." Then we could talk it over. If it worked, I was going to ask you and others to do a similar summary of what, say PelleSmith or Itaqallah or Alarob probably think.
Maybe it was a dumb idea. But remember WP:AGF.
I don't understand why you think a "sourced" sentence is unassailable in Wikipedia. I could post a website in the next 15 minutes with that paragraph I wrote about Islam in the United States, put a famous writer's name on it, then link to it from the Wikipedia article. PelleSmith would delete it, and he'd be right. It's an extreme example, but I think you see the point. Your "sourced statements" are not NPOV just because they're sourced.
Any chance that we can work together instead of going through these repetitive arguments? You have a say in this. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were not sourced from blogs or ramdom websites. They were sourced from respectable newssources, congressional testimonies etc.

When you ask me to WP:AGF, please read your own words:

"Yet these editors have to continue to use the rules and rhetoric of Wikipedia in order to continue to have access to this semi-protected article. Probably these editors assume that there can be no reconciliation between their views and those of other editors -- who insist on writing an article rather than alerting the public to a threat.

Here's a crazy idea. Suppose the entire article were blanked and replaced with the following paragraph...."

hardly good faith. I replied to you after you made these personal remarks clearly mocking my views. SO WP:AGF doesnt apply to me. NapoleansSword 22:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a sidenote because of these one-sided edits to the article, facts have been masked and desensitized. I would re-edit the article but I am sure I would immediately be reverted even though I source every statement (like I had done before). I would be called in for discussion, been made to repeat same thing over and over. NapoleansSword 22:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page, I should have avoided repeating criticisms in that section. It probably made my whole message seem critical, which was not my intention.
I do stand by what I wrote. While no one can actually "see" the motivations of other editors when they revert, I have seen enough to conclude that this is most likely what is happening: Some editors are pushing their point of view and seeking to exclude others, whose views they think are irreconcilable with their own. Maybe this does not describe you. Maybe no one is doing this and I am being cynical. I would love to believe it. So let's work together.
A good way to begin -- and this applies to me as much as anyone -- might be to stop dredging up past remarks and concentrate on the condition of the article as it is, and the condition we would like it to be in. Which facts do you feel have been masked and desensitized?
You mention being reverted even though you source every statement. Do you realize that not every source is a reliable source? For instance, a communist magazine would be unlikely to be a reliable source about Islam, although it might be reliable about communism. So any of us would most likely nix a statement that was sourced to Workers' World. Editorials are not reliable, because their intent is to persuade, not to relay facts impartially. David Horowitz's Front Page Magazine is a journal of opinion published by a biased critic of Islam. Using it is just as biased as quoting, say, Karen Armstrong writing for an interfaith website. Armstrong also has a bias. Even if the facts she mentioned were correct, we would need a better source for them. Do you disagree with any of this?
Do you still think I accused you of holding 'nazi' views? -- Rob C. alias Alarob 00:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call newssources, magazines and congressional testimonies as biased sources. In any case, just to prevent edit wars (that had happened in the past) I had tried to compromise by making it clear like "Washington Post mentions that" or "In his testimony before US Senate..." etc. Although I feel this was not required I still compromised to accommodate people's concerns for clarity about the source. Now since you are even challenging these sources and saying that all these sources are not a reliable source for Islam, if I may ask, what is a good source according to you? An Islamic website? NapoleansSword 04:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drop me a line, would you? Your raising an 'massively' important point that I'd really like to discuss. Use email, its faster. Thanks.--Jonashart 07:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I still stand by my point that your paragraph did imply that I hold extremist views especially with what you wrote before and after the paragraph. It is really unfortunate that you had to resort to this bad faith satirical attack. NapoleansSword 04:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine, NS, you're right about everything and I'm wrong about everything. You are operating in perfect good faith, and I am a reprobate. Perfect. Now would you please answer my questions?

Do you still think I attributed "nazi" views to you?
Which facts do you think have been "masked and desensitized" in the article?
Do you disagree with my example of how not every source is a reliable source?

I am anxious to know. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the paragraph you wrote points in that direction
Many..for starters, removal of congressional testimony about radical Muslim inmates, fact that one of the main reasons for growth of Islam is growing due conversion of felons (in addition to immigration), removal of 1 in 4 muslims believe suicide bombings are justified even when there are sources like msnbc, yahoo news, fox news which say that, removal of the fact that there is a controversy about footbaths in airports when its clear from the source that there is, densensitizing the issue of Bush being compared to hitler, removal of the fact that the first Muslim congressman suggested that Bush administration may have carried out 9/11. there are many more but these are the ones i can think of off my head.
If they are as per WP:RS it is reliable FOR WIKIPEDIA. As you might know, every university, institute etc have their own criteria of what they call reliable. Here we follow WP:RS. so unless someone can show if it violates the guidelines, its reliable. Also in case if someone thinks that the information conveyed is not agreeable to them or is one-sided, they can bring another source as per WP:RS and that information could also be incorporated rather than removing the first one.

On a side note, these days I'm a bit busy and don't have time for WP..but one of these days, I'll have to make sure this article is re written. Its biased on many counts. NapoleansSword 18:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing an article is not a contest between ideologies. It is not a struggle between right and wrong, either. Can you imagine finding a reliable source for a perspective that you do not personally agree with? Try it sometime.

About your interpretation of WP:RS: Please bear in mind that the three essential policies are neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. It is not kosher to choose a source because it supports your view, then point to WP:RS and say it should stay in the article because it isn't prohibited. Some people call that wikilawyering. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]