This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Hi Vice regent,
I would like to discuss a certain issue with you in private, can you send me a PM. -- BrownianMotionS ( talk) 16:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, VR. Hope you've been well. Sorry I forgot to ping you to let you know that I closed your AN request with no action ( permanent link), but with some notes still attached. I will say that I think the fact that this request remained at AN for over 2 months (and remained untouched for almost a month) seems quite emblematic of what I said both on that thread as well as at the MEK talk page. Namely, that no outside editor wishes to get into the content weeds for that subject, and no uninvolved admin wants to provide active enforcement, either. That is to say, enforcement which, if we were to follow the example of myself and Vanamonde93's (courtesy ping) approach, is about as activist (as in an agent, not in terms of advocacy, obviously) an admin's role can ever really be on the project.
I note that upon linking to Vanamonde's username just now, I happened to glance at his contribs (just a diff or two, as I am pressed for time at the moment) for a sec and noticed he's back at it, but that, unless I'm misreading, he seems to be at his wits end at this time ( diff), just as I had been in the past. I'll stress that this amounts to my only peak into the MEK talk page since my last comment there, and all I read was Vanamonde's aforementioned comment in isolation. Anyway, I guess there goes the "cautious optimism" I expressed at my closing summary at AN. Please feel free to update me about what has been happening there since my last visit — in a breath only, though, if you please! Kind regards, El_C 17:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
this edit contains several deeply offensive claims for which there is no evidence and for which you have been told repeatedly there is no basis, both by myself and others. I suspect you included them by mistake, having forgotten this. They are: GPinkerton's refusal to admit the existence of Muslims who were both offended by the cartoon but also condemned the murder.
this is an outrageous claim and you should remove it immediately from you comment, since it a very serious allegation which is entirely untrue and unsubstantiated; it furthermore runs entirely counter to absolutely everything I have ever written on Wikipedia or elsewhere. You have previously adduced made by WhinyTheYounger who said "GPinkerton push[es] a very specific POV [that] Islam is incompatible with free expression"
as evidence of this before, but someone else's incorrect claim is not evidence of your repeating it being correct. Again, you have been told this before, so I'm reminding you of this fact now, and advising you to revert your unsupported assertions and aspersions. Furthermore, we have already discussed at length that GPinkerton questioned the reliability of widely published academics, in part, due to them being either "professing Muslim" or "true-believers".
is an accusation for which there is no evidence; this was an entirely relevant comment of mine and your (I assume mistaken) decision to label me Islamophobic has been shown to be incorrect in previous discussions on this very issue, and on your attempt to blacken my name as such before. Again, I urge you to remove these distortions, in case they are mistaken for personal attacks.
GPinkerton (
talk) 06:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
At WP:RSN, GPinkerton questioned the reliability of widely published academics, in part, due to them being either "professing Muslim", when my actual comment was about the blog post being a blog post, an apology, a biased source and a non-scholarly work, and not as you you have mistakenly suggested,
"in part, due to them being either "professing Muslim"". Here is the original that makes this clear:
As you can see, you misinterpreted what I said, and, recognizing this, it would be best if you now reverted your claims based on this misunderstanding. GPinkerton ( talk) 07:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Is this in-universe blog post by Jonathan A. C. Brown a reliable source for use on the article Rape in Islamic law. A professing Muslim, the professor has courted controversy on his idiosyncratic (let's call it that) view of slavery, which has ramifications for the content of his blog post(s)
have a vested interest in trying to make their respective ideologies coherent and internally consistent."
Hello. could you share the books you mentioned in the MEK's talk page,( http://www.sussex-academic.com/sa/titles/politics_ir/CohenRise.htm) or other reliable books you think would help improving the article? Ghazaalch ( talk) 10:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)