Truthpedia
Unprotect edit
The policy says: "If the accuser hasn't requested CheckUser for ten days, you are allowed to remove the notice from your page."
- Um...what needs to be unprotected? As far as I can tell, your user page and your user talk page have never been protected. Could you please explain? Metros 15:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- I removed the protection on the user page. --CBD 23:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Your edit to Islam in China edit
Hi, I've reverted your edit to Islam in China again. We can admit only reliable sources, such as Dru Gladney (a well-respected scholar of Muslim populations in China), Ferm's "Encyclopedia of Religion", and the official Chinese census, or other scholarly references in print. Compared to sources of this stature, any random website or news article will generally not be considered reliable. Specifically, this website [1]:
- At present, according to official statistics there are 28 million Muslim in China but in1936 it was estimated that the Muslim population was 48 million. By this time total population has increased 3-4 fold. So we can conclude that the total Muslim population has increased minimum by that same proportion. Therefore, now the total Muslim population is at least 150 million.
is just unsourced speculation; we will only use those figures which have appeared in print in scholarly journals or books, as those offer a guarantee of having been peer-reviewed and/or fact checked. Also, the Hui are NOT 9% of the Chinese population, as is very clear to anyone travelling or living in China. Thanks. cab 23:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- How about the BBC? Isn't it a reliable source? --Truthpedia 00:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- In general, I'd say a news article is less reliable than a scholarly work or a governmental census, especially where they don't give a source for their estimates. It's partially a result of how news articles get put together --- with a very short deadline in mind, on the order of days --- meaning the fact-checking process can't be as thorough. Cheers, cab 01:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Copyright violation edit
Islami/Truthpedia, do not copy material from Islamic (or other) websites, as you did from [2]; it violates Wikipedia policies. Additionally, do not call legitimate edits "vandalism" in your edit summaries.Proabivouac 01:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to notify that mediation has renewed at the Muhammad article, after a delay due to Ars Scriptor's leaving, in case you still wanted to participate. I'll be the mediator, but I may call in help from someone more experienced later. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 13:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)