Hola, J8079s, y bienvenido a Wikipedia. Gracias por tus contribuciones . Espero que te guste el lugar y decidas quedarte. Aquí tienes algunas páginas que pueden resultarte útiles:
Espero que disfrutes editando aquí y siendo un wikipedista . Por favor, firma tus mensajes en las páginas de discusión usando cuatro tildes (~~~~); esto insertará automáticamente tu nombre de usuario y la fecha. Si necesitas ayuda, consulta Wikipedia:Preguntas , pregúntame en mi página de discusión o formula tu pregunta en esta página y luego colócala {{helpme}}antes de la pregunta. ¡De nuevo, bienvenido! Freestyle-69 ( discusión ) 22:23 16 nov 2008 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminación rápidaDesignación de dispositivos de elevación directa rotativos
Se ha colocado una etiqueta en los dispositivos de elevación directa rotatoria solicitando que se elimine rápidamente de Wikipedia. Esto se ha hecho bajo la sección A3 de los criterios para la eliminación rápida , porque es un artículo sin contenido alguno, o cuyo contenido consiste únicamente en enlaces externos, una sección "Véase también", referencias de libros, etiquetas de categoría, etiquetas de plantilla, enlaces interwiki, una reformulación del título o un intento de contactar con el tema del artículo. Consulte Wikipedia:Stub para conocer nuestros estándares mínimos de información para artículos breves. Tenga en cuenta también que los artículos deben tratar sobre temas notables y deben proporcionar referencias a fuentes fiables que verifiquen su contenido. Es posible que desee considerar la posibilidad de utilizar un asistente para ayudarlo a crear artículos: consulte el Asistente para artículos .
Si cree que este aviso se ha colocado aquí por error, puede impugnar la eliminación añadiendo al principio de la página que ha sido nominada para su eliminación (justo debajo de la etiqueta de eliminación rápida o "db"), junto con añadir una nota en la página de discusión explicando su posición, pero tenga en cuenta que una vez etiquetada para eliminación rápida , si la página cumple con el criterio, puede ser eliminada sin demora. No elimine usted mismo la etiqueta de eliminación rápida, pero no dude en añadir información a la página que la haga más conforme con las políticas y directrices de Wikipedia. Por último, tenga en cuenta que si la página se elimina, puede ponerse en contacto con uno de estos administradores para solicitar que la modifiquen como usuario o que le envíen una copia por correo electrónico. ttonyb ( discusión ) 06:29, 5 de enero de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]{{hangon}}
Propuesta de eliminaciónde los Sabianos de la Nueva Era
Se ha propuesto eliminar el artículo Sabianos de la Nueva Era debido a la siguiente preocupación:
WP:O
Si bien se agradecen todas las contribuciones a Wikipedia, el contenido o los artículos pueden eliminarse por diversas razones .
Puede evitar la eliminación propuesta eliminando el aviso, pero explique por qué en el resumen de la edición o en la página de discusión del artículo.{{dated prod}}
Muchas gracias por su apoyo a mi pedido de trasladar Geber a Jābir ibn Hayyān . El traslado ya se ha realizado y he realizado algunas correcciones en los enlaces y en parte del contenido del artículo de Jābir ibn Hayyān. No podré hacer mucho más con él (ni con el pseudo- artículo de Geber) durante una semana más o menos, pero al menos le daré una buena limpieza cuando pueda.
He notado que has estado agregando {{ vn }} a muchos artículos (absolutamente correcto). Muy a menudo, esto sucede cuando alguien en particular ha tomado material de una fuente y ha agregado una afirmación de prioridad; es decir, el artículo solo dice que fulano hizo tal cosa, pero el artículo de Wikipedia agrega la afirmación infundada de que fue el primero en hacerlo.
Acabo de eliminar este tipo de extrapolaciones injustificadas, principalmente simplemente eliminando la reivindicación de prioridad. ¿Crees que es mejor agregar {{ vn }} a estos artículos? He dejado de eliminar dichas reivindicaciones por el momento, en caso de que lo que estás haciendo sea una mejor manera de lidiar con esto.
Hola, J8079s. Tienes mensajes nuevos en la página de discusión de Syncategoremata . Mensaje añadido a las 17:24, 4 abril 2010 (UTC). Puedes eliminar este aviso en cualquier momento eliminando la plantilla {{Talkback}} o {{Tb}}.[ responder ]
Invitación a la discusión
Hola, estás invitado a participar en la siguiente discusión sobre este tema . La discusión trata sobre formas generales de mejorar Wikipedia en términos de verificabilidad de contenidos. Saludos Gun Powder Ma ( discusión ) 20:49 4 abr 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mal uso de las fuentes
Hola. Mira aquí y aquí . Gun Powder Ma ( discusión ) 22:31 15 abr 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Perdón por la demora, pero quería agradecerte por firmar el resumen final de esta convocatoria. Me alegra que ya haya quedado atrás y espero que nunca tengamos que pasar por algo así otra vez.
Gracias por encontrar Sharia y la ley nacional en los países musulmanes . Perdón por haberte criticado el otro día, estaba totalmente en modo reactivo. Me ayudaste a hacer mi primera "gran" edición. Recuerdo lo que me dijiste: sé valiente . Debe haber sido hace unos meses. Ahora me parece que fue hace cien años.
Me di cuenta de que acabas de etiquetar para verificación las afirmaciones sobre al-Khazini y la gravedad en el artículo de física aristotélica . Las afirmaciones allí son tal como se dan en ese artículo (incluido el comentario tonto sobre la energía potencial gravitatoria ). Lo que no se molesta en mencionar es que Aristóteles también pensaba que el peso de un cuerpo varía según su distancia del centro de la Tierra y que era un lugar común de la filosofía helenística y griega posterior: ¿el peso variaba con la distancia? ¿aumentaba? ¿disminuía? ¿tiene un objeto algún peso en su lugar natural? Por supuesto, el artículo citado no se molesta en mencionar esto (y se lee como si ni siquiera estuvieran al tanto de la historia pasada de la pregunta), pero creo que la afirmación debería eliminarse o contextualizarse por completo. Hay algunos otros problemas con ese capítulo fuente en particular (que no puedo recordar en este momento) y está en mi lista para investigar. Simplemente no está del todo en la parte superior de esa lista, todavía. Y me alegra poder decir: bienvenido de nuevo. Todo lo mejor. – Syncategoremata ( discusión ) 22:19 21 may 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Banu Musa
Hola. Sí, creo que voy demasiado rápido. En un esfuerzo por revertir el trabajo de Jagged85 comencé a eliminar todos estos supuestos inventos. Pero creo que tienes razón. Los pondré nuevamente diciendo que eran descripciones de dispositivos mecánicos anteriores ya conocidos desde la antigüedad. Un saludo. Knight1993 ( discusión ) 17:23 14 jun 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Grecoárabe, etc.
Hola,
Me excedí demasiado en mi uso. Hay algunos usos de los términos con guion que mencionas, pero (según Google Scholar) el uso académico favorece abrumadoramente las formas sin guion:
"ciencia greco-islámica": Resultados 1 - 8 de 8
"ciencia greco-árabe": Resultados 1 - 10 de aproximadamente 45
"ciencia árabe": Resultados 1 - 10 de aproximadamente 2.000
"ciencia islámica": Resultados 1 - 10 de aproximadamente 3.490
Tienes razón, hay algunas fuentes buenas que utilizan el término y yo las había olvidado (un momento de madurez). No obstante, es un término minoritario y soy un poco hipersensible a lo que David Pingree llamó helenofilia en la historia de la ciencia. -- SteveMcCluskey ( discusión ) 20:59 18 jun 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Editar conflicto enJabir ibn Hayyan
Mis disculpas por haberme metido en un conflicto de edición contigo en Jābir ibn Hayyān . Por alguna razón no me di cuenta de que acababas de hacer tu edición anterior: me aseguraré de dejar pasar más tiempo en el futuro antes de editar. Me llamó la atención la etiqueta {{ Vn }} que habías añadido, que se refería a un artículo que había estado leyendo a principios de esta semana. No es una fuente muy buena para esa afirmación y probablemente la afirmación debería simplemente eliminarse o trasladarse a una nueva sección histórica en el artículo Equivalente (química) , ya que es muy vaga. Todo lo mejor. – Syncategoremata ( discusión ) 11:58, 19 de junio de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por favor, no me esperes. Soy muy lento. Creo que necesitamos un esquema y una lista de cosas por hacer. J8079s (discusión) 17:05 19 jun 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Limpieza irregular
Me di cuenta de que recientemente editaste un artículo que sigo. ¡Excelente trabajo! Sin embargo, me gustaría sugerirte que intentes poner un enlace a, por ejemplo, la página de discusión de RFC en al menos uno de tus resúmenes de edición cuando limpies un artículo. Quizás añadas " ver [[WT:Requests for comment/Jagged 85]] " a tu resumen de "verificación fallida", de modo que se lea " verificación fallida, ver WT:Requests for comment/Jagged 85 ". Eso podría ayudar cuando los editores vean el historial del artículo en una semana o en seis meses: verán los antecedentes de este caso inusual. Johnuniq ( discusión ) 05:05, 20 de julio de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola, en relación con esta edición de Lens (óptica) : ¿puedes explicarme o darme un enlace a algún lugar donde se discuta el problema específico con esta referencia o las afirmaciones de Jagged? Mi preocupación es que Alhazen es lo suficientemente importante como para que probablemente deba ser mencionado, pero no tengo suficiente información para construir un reemplazo para el texto que eliminaste. En cualquier caso, tu edición introdujo un problema: Alhazen y su libro se mencionan nuevamente más abajo en la sección. Dado que eliminaste la introducción de este material, la mención posterior de ellos no está clara. -- Srleffler ( discusión ) 17:18 20 jul 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me parece adecuada la eliminación de las afirmaciones sin fuentes; he realizado cambios editoriales para aclarar las menciones a Alhazen y su libro de óptica. -- SteveMcCluskey ( discusión ) 13:22 21 jul 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias Steve, creo que necesitamos un resumen de lo que está mal con "Alhazen" y el "libro de Óptica". La edición en cuestión aquí es típica de "Jagged", es decir, una buena fuente mal representada y una teoría original. J8079s (discusión) 00:35 22 jul 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy al tanto de esto, ya que solo he analizado los comentarios de RFC y no la evidencia, por lo que simplemente señalaré esta reversión y diré que rápidamente hice un WP:CHECKUSER y estoy bastante seguro de que es solo una reversión aleatoria de un anónimo. John Vandenberg ( chat ) 08:09, 22 de julio de 2010 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me di cuenta de tus ediciones recientes (¡bien!), pero usaste llaves ( {{...}}) en tu resumen de edición en lugar de corchetes ( [[...]]). Además, ahora hay un mejor atajo para usar. Un resumen de edición debe incluir " see [[WP:Jagged 85 cleanup]]"[ responder ] (copy the text that you see between the quotes from this talk page). If you look at the history of this talk page you will see how it looks because I included it in my edit summary. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help J8079s (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your work with WP:Jagged 85 cleanup – some progress is finally being made. One point you may like to bear in mind if the situation arises again, is that WP:CWW says that when copying material from one page to another, we should use an edit summary that contains a link to the source (so the page history properly attributes authorship). Your edit (diff) at Science in medieval Islam might have had edit summary "copy text from User:SteveMcCluskey/SMI, see talk" (which contains a link to the source). I'm sure there is no problem, but I am mentioning this in case you were not aware, for the future. Johnuniq (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I did mention on the talk page that it was Steve's work to give him credit but I was unaware there was a policy. your summary would have been good too. again thanks for the help. J8079s (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI ANI re Islamic metaphysics
Hi, your name has not come up yet, but in case it does, I wanted you to be aware. thanks
Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, -Aquib (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The admins helped me see the article history. Are there any others I need to account for? Thanks -Aquib (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to comment on RFC regarding the stubbing (deletion) of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article
Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, -Aquib (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jagged 85 cleanup: article stubbing
Hello. You are invited to take part in this vote concerning the clean-up effort in connectuion with Jagged 85's RFC/U. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Record your cleanup
Hello. Could you please record your work progress at the newly created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Top edits and, if you haven't done so yet, at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup#Cleanup lists. The first link lists the most frequently articles edited by Jagged 85 by number of edits, the latter by total number of bytes added by him. As you know, keeping track of the cleanup effort is paramount to avoid double work. Thanks and regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Banū Mūsā
Hi. Saw on talk page you verified last year some entries, like a "lamp", by Jagged 85. Could you be so kind and restore them? Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle for certain reversions?
Hi, may I ask why you only use Twinkle for certain reversions? Thanks
I'm not sure what you mean. I prefer to use inline tags when I can. Should I use it more or not so much?
Jag
The Arab geographerMuhammad al-Idrisi produced his medieval atlas Tabula Rogeriana in 1154. He incorporated the knowledge of Africa, the Indian Ocean and the Far East, gathered by Arab merchants and explorers with the information inherited from the classical geographers to create the most accurate map of the world up until his time. It remained the most accurate world map for the next three centuries. S. P. Scott (1904), History of the Moorish Empire, pp. 461-2.
Just wondering if the above is cited properly from Cartography. I can't find the source, and it was added by Jagged85. Pass a Method talk 19:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The noble and elevating pursuits of science were not neglected under the Moors of Sicily and their intelligent and progressive conquerors, the Norman princes. Geography, astronomy, chemistry, and medicine were studied with diligence and success. Edrisi, whose descent from the royal dynasty of Fez has been obscured by the eminent reputation he attained as a geographer and a philosopher, made for Roger II. a planisphere which represented at once the surface of the earth and the positions of the heavenly bodies."
Scott, Samuel Parsons (1904). History of the Moorish Empire in Europe. pp. 68–. Retrieved 27 May 2011.
There are several editions [1] (full view)
Unfortunately this raise more questions than it answers. I hope it helpsJ8079s (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using sources over 100 years old is not best and as some times happens with the jagg stuff al-Irdisi is much more interesting than the edits make him appear this source Harley, J. B. (1992-06-01). The history of cartography: Cartography in the traditional islamic and south asian societies. Oxford University Press US. ISBN 9780226316352. Retrieved 27 May 2011. would be the one to use there is a preview at google books but most of his pages are redacted. J8079s (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Links for deletions from Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe
Hi, you made some deletions from the above article, which I broadly agree with, but you had said you were going to provide links showing where they were judged to be bad sources, which so far you haven't done. Do you know when you'll get a chance to do this? Thanks, --Merlinme (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Canon of Medicine
Hi. I saw you only shortend the Jaggedized version after it was restored by some dubious user. Were you aware of this or should we revert to the stub again?
stub by me
rv by some dubious new user
shortened by you
Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you think is best I'm stuck out of town with an Ipad. My version has some stuff that doesn't belong but try to leave an outline that others can fill in. J8079s (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back home and hope to resume editing soon J8079s (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In History of medicine, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Old Babylonian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jagged 85 cleanup
Hi. I have just posted a response to a query you made some time ago here. David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute resolution survey
Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited Medicine in the medieval Islamic world, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serapion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Credo Reference
I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.
We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Wikipedia editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out WP:HighBeam and WP:Questia, where accounts are still available. Cheers, Ocaasi 19:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.
The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email [email protected] your Wikipedia username.
To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of medicine and medical technology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fabiola (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quick check shows Sufi psychology is a pretty common expression [2] for contemporary studies of Sufi. For context view see Dervish. There is always room for a content fork my advice is this looks like a good faith can of worms and either continue with your merge or tag it and move on. I am going to continue to work on adding perspective to Pre-scientific Psychology and some other areas. I joined Questia before I saw this WP:Questia. I am urging everyone to try it there's a free one day trail. Lots of good stuff. J8079s (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of medicine and medical technology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Anthony's fire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Locke
I'm curious re [3] at Locke; that's you changing your mind about [4].
I have this, from Edward, by email:
Here is the SEP article http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information which says
The idea of a tabula rasa development of the human mind was the topic of a novel Hayy ibn Yaqdhan by the Arabic Andalusian philosopher Ibn Tufail (1105–1185 CE, known as “Abubacer” or “Ebn Tophail” in the West). This novel describes the development of an isolated child on a deserted island. A later translation in Latin under the title Philosophus Autodidactus (1761) influenced the empiricist John Locke in the formulation of his tabula rasa doctrine.
I suspect this was sourced directly from the Wikipedia article (a) because of the similarity of the wording (b) Locke never used the term 'tabula rasa' (c) it postdates the Wikipedia article (d) the article uses Wikipedia as a source for other claims. Now Wikipedia can cite the SEP, of course.
But I can't say anything about claims that "Locke never used the term 'tabula rasa'", though. Perhaps you can? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I'd left the delete.I was new then. As I recall sources say Locke probably read the book. On the subject; Tabulas were out of style by Locke's time he used the phrase "white paper" and possibly "empty cabinet", however no one writes about Some Thoughts Concerning Education with out using the the phrase. Earlier writers think we are born with innate knowledge of logic and use the phrase in a different sense.
[6] Boethius, Consolatio Philosophiae (I think hes against it)
J8079s (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pediatrics, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Aetius, Serapion and Soranus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aspasia the Physian
Do you have any evidence that the Aspasia who wrote the gynocological texts was from Physia? Or did you intend it to say "Aspasia the Physician"?
There should be no footnotes on disambiguation pages (Wikipedia:Disambiguation#References), the listed entry either points to an article about the subject, or to an article where the subject is discussed as part of a larger topic. Since nothing is recorded about Aspasia's life, it would seems that the appropriate target would be something like Gynaecology#History or a new history section at Obstetrics and gynaecology. Your references would be placed at the target article. Do you wish to make the changes, or shall I. --Bejnar (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold and thank you J8079s (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fernández-Morera and RS noticeboard
Though Fernández-Morera's article is thoroughly referenced and he has solid academic credentials, the place of publication is a problem. The journal lacks peer review and has a strong ideological slant. His having authored a paper entitled 'Islamic Warriors' Destruction of a Nascent Civilization' won't help in establishing his neutrality on Islamic culture in Spain. I would suggest taking a look at some of the citations in "The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise", which may follow a similar line of reasoning with a less controversial publication history.Dialectric (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I WP:DGF It was just a drive by I don't even edit over there. The "myth" part is misleading its not about agenda based wiki editors. the subject is covered Cohen, Mark. 1995. Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01082-X and it's not really a controversy. I find the whole thing ironic as I am the one always pushing for "best sources". J8079s (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New source Crane, Lee. Jewish German Revolution. Pavilion Press. ISBN 9781414507378. Retrieved 30 September 2014. misleading title looks intresting. J8079s (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of surgery, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Miasma and Joseph Lister (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of medicine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Anthony's fire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you oppose a neutral point of view and reliable sources in the Second Amendment Article?
Please be specific. Are you saying the LIbrary of Congress, the New York Times, the Congressional Research Service and several direct quotations from court cases are untrustworthy sources? Or are you saying that a wikipedia article should not show both sides of a controversy? Or are you saying that a four-year old interpretation should be mentioned and the history beforehand should not be? Just saying something "does not belong there" does not consist of an argument. Please make one. Simply disliking fact is not an argument and will not dissuade me, nor will it convince arbiters in an arbitration. So please give me your best wikipedia argument for why you would not include relevant factual material backed up by reliable sources (including the same source used elsewhere in the article). You're the only editor other than North8000 that disagrees with the change. North8000 has conceded that he/she has no source whatsoever to back up his beliefs while I have the Library of Congress, the New York Times, and the Congressional Research Service backing me up. Do you have a contrary source? If you know of a case prior to 2000 that struck down a law under the Second Amendment or found that the prefatory militia clause is meaningless and there is an individual right to bear arms, by all means cite it. Do your research. And if/when you can't find one, I respectfully request you withdraw your objection.GreekParadise (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you are way out of line your NYT sources are not WP:RS [7] as with any questionable source if the info is verifiable you will find it elsewhere. Your edit here [8] indicates that you know this. Please remember WP:NPOV esp.[9] and you are responsible for balancing your own edits. You are using Library of Congress and Congressional Research Service to support the NYT editorial there is no place in WP for editorials except as sources for themselves. 67 amicus briefs were filed [10] the findings [11] It is not clear to me what page "the debate" belongs on but hers a source Doherty, Brian (2008). Gun Control on Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle Over the Second Amendment. Cato Institute. ISBN 9781933995250. Retrieved 24 February 2013. J8079s (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT front-page article from their Supreme Court reporter -- who is also cited in this same article re the McDonald case without dispute by you-- is not an op-ed by any definition. The Cato Institute, however, is clear POV and has no more place in this article than would be a citation from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.GreekParadise (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nunn v. Georgia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Right to bear arms (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second Amendment Collective-Rights History pre-Heller
Please review prior to editing or commenting further on the Second Amendment. I have posted it on the Talk Page as well, but I'm reaching out to you and all other editors personally because I sincerely believe when you review the evidence and when you search for contrary evidence, you will see I am correct about this history. I'm not claiming you personally had any statement about this, but I wanted to post the identical thing on every editors' talk page so please do not take it personally. "You" refers to anyone who disputes the reliable sources I have posted below.
The law WAS collective only prior to Heller. If I show you 3 cases and several commentaries by irrefutably accurate sources and you cannot show me a single case from 1939 to 2000 to refute it, you have to accept that history is history.
In 1977 at a Denver hotel, Don Kates paced a conference room lecturing a small group of young scholars about the Second Amendment and tossing out ideas for law review articles. Back then, it was a pretty weird activity in pursuit of a wacky notion: that the Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm.
“This idea for a very long time was just laughed at,” said Nelson Lund, the Patrick Henry professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University, a chair endowed by the National Rifle Association. “A lot of people thought it was preposterous and just propaganda from gun nuts.”
...
The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Before the Heller decision, the Supreme Court and lower courts had interpreted the language as “preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias,” according to a Congressional Research Service analysis.
“It was a settled question, and the overwhelming consensus, bordering on unanimity, was that the Second Amendment granted a collective right” enjoyed by the states, not individuals, Bogus said. Under this interpretation, the Constitution provides no right for an individual to possess a firearm.
Lund [Remember he's the NRA-endowed Second-Amendment professor!] agreed that there was a consensus but said it was “based on ignorance.”
OK, you don't trust the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the National Rifle Association-endowed professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment? How about trusting the courts themselves? Just read these three:
- Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)
- United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir. 1976) (“[i]t is clear
that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.”)
- Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 1995) (“the lower federal courts
have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than
individual right.”)
All of them cited Miller. All of them were the law of the land. There's not a single case in all of American history in any court state or federal that found an individual right to bear arms absent service in a militia and struck down a gun law as unconstitutional prior to 2000. I will pay $100 to anyone who can find any case that says so.
Furthermore, there is not a single President prior to 2000 that stated he believed the Supreme Court conferred an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment absent service in a militia. Even Reagan didn't believe it. I will pay $100 to anyone who can find any President that stated this position prior to 2000.
Truth is truth. If you don't like truth, you should not be editing wikipedia. Many editors here, I know you believe otherwise. But whoever told you a lie was true was mistaken. Read my sources. Then look for reliable sources on your own. When you can't find any (and if you do, I'll give you $100), I would respectfully request that all of you withdraw your objections. If you don't, then you are clear POV-pushers and should not be editing wikipedia.
Otherwise, if the only way to remove unreliable sources in wikipedia is to put up a request for comment and/or mediation, let's do it. I'll bet my reliable sources against all of your absence of sources any day. There is nothing wrong with admitting you are wrong. People are trying to revise history and some people fall prey to it. Maybe you read something on the Internet from some ignorant blogger and believed it to be true. I respectfully request you look at the sources and come to the only accurate conclusion.
My history is backed up by EVERY judicial decision and EVERY President prior to 2000 and the Library of Congress, and the Congressional Research Service, and the NRA-endowed Professor of the Second Amendment, not to mention the NYT and the WP. And the contrary position is backed up by some sincere mistaken beliefs AND NOT A SINGLE SOURCE.
An honest and ethical wikipedia editor cannot look truth in the face and declare it untrue without a single reliable source to back it up. I will post this on the talk page of every editor who has edited or commented recently because I sincerely want all of you to review the sources before further editing or commenting.
Further sources:
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf (Congressional Research Service)
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php (Library of Congress)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html (New York Times)
GreekParadise (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Second Amendment to the Constitution".
