User talk:DavidYork71

SEE MY USER PAGE FOR MY ANNOUNCEMENT OF MY SABBATICAL FROM EDITING HERE (March 2007)

Murray & Hernstein

DavidYork71, I will not disagree that Murray & Hernstein's work constitutes valid, if imperfect, sociological science. However, the associated graph is obviously quite controversial. Mainspace isn't censored, but there is really no reason to host it in userspace, where it will inform hardly anyone, and may be used against you. Proabivouac 06:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont' understand what it is trying to say - or what David is trying to say by using it. Merbabu 13:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I suppose it does not come from M&H after all. David, I presume nothing in particular about what you are trying to say; I am only offering friendly advice, which you are free to ignore.Proabivouac 14:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The story is I was trawling throught NPOV disputes trying to eliminate a few where articles had been reactively tagged without describing points of variance or reasons on talk, which I see quite a lot. I learned that not just articles, but also maps, graphs and even pictures got the treatment. This graph was one of them. It sits here in honour of all those - we all know the type - who will reactively tag information of all kinds because they don't like the truths it may reveal about a subject.DavidYork71 09:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I and S

I gave my reasons on the talk for that edit. Please revert yourself. Arrow740 09:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Arrow740 09:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"However, despite abolitionist views sourced from some influential scholars of Islam." There aren't any. You are overreacting here. Please don't edit the intro, it's a concensus version produced by a neutral editor. Arrow740 09:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three reverts every twenty-four hours is not an entitlement. It is better to avoid undoing another person's work if possible. Try to integrate what you want to say with what others want to say, and take it slowly. After all, no one who is blocked is able to contribute to the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but there is no exception to 3rr that alows you to revert factually incorrect material. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On that page I have only that one reversion in 24 hours and I've self-reverted myself twice upon request from ArrowDavidYork71 14:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Arabic-English verification issue

Hi David. Could you please give me some time to look at your request? Probably, i can do that this week-end. I am a bit busy w/ the military wikiproject for now. Cheers. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm very interested to know more about Muhammad's slaves. Who they were, what he used them for, why they were slaves, and just generally what we can be most sure about on this subject so many centuries later.DavidYork71 00:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging

David York, you've got a number of images tagged with the {{attribution}} tag like this one and yet you've not provided any sort of proof of this. Would you kindly review the images you have uploaded and correct this? Information on image licensing is an important necessity when Wikipedia uses such content. (→Netscott) 15:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comments

Please do not break my comments. --Aminz 21:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Arabslaverwomen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Arabslaverwomen.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Your user page says "This user is a sockpuppet of Allah". What is that supposed to mean?Bless sins 06:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are pretending to imitate Allah? I didn't quite understand your response fully. The reason I was asking you is out of curiosity as to why you would use Allah in the context of term used negatively on wikipedia.Bless sins 16:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DavidYork71, I strongly suggest that you not replace the userbox in question, which I've just removed. Generally, userboxes are of no value whatsoever. They have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia, and if they cause even one mote of trouble, they should go. Let us now move on and find something more meaningful to discuss.Proabivouac 22:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:BongHitz4Musa?

Thanks

I really appreciate, NN 03:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graph on your user talk page

As per WP:USER the graph at the top of this page is violation of WP:NPA and WP:NPOV. Please remove it. Gnan garra 03:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No.DavidYork71 06:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You already did. [1] Why would you then say 'no' to such a request? Merbabu 08:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your edit on Islam Children

What do u mean by this: Remove hadith quoted as original research (no secondary sourcing apparent) A hadith is an adequate reference...and Muslims are bound by it to follow. Additionally you have introduced a NOR tag so that I could have added additional ref.

Smus 06:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is collaborative

please wait for sometime before merging. --Aminz 09:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YEs, please do not move pages unilaterally. Furthermore, it seems you have done this by copy and pasting. This is a big wikipedia no-no as you've managed to lose both the discussion for each topic (it could be suggested you wanted this) and you have also removed the page history. I will be asking an admin to revert the changes until such time as there is consensus on any move, and the more important problem of lost history. Please learn to be more collaborative in your approaches and be careful of ownership issues. thanks. --Merbabu 12:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have repaired the damage you did to the article histories with your copy-paste move. I've already mentioned this problem to you ages ago.[2] I, like everyone, don't particularly like having to clean up someone else's mess because they chose to ignore me. Please learn to use the "move" tab if you're going to move pages around. Hesperian 13:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autosodomy

A tag has been placed on Autosodomy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Autosodomy is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Autosodomy saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. --DeLarge 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and children

Please provide explanations for you edits, particularly major changes to contentious topics - ie, anything involving Islam. For example, there is no explanation for this change [3]. Merbabu 13:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all explained, all justified, by its sourcing to which yourself and all editors and readers are invited to consult.DavidYork71 22:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam template

Sorry, I've reverted your addition to the Islam template. There has been a long discussion about what to add and what not to, and Islam and animals doesn't seem to be relevant enough. If you want you can discuss at the template talk page. Feer 13:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Test

Thank you for experimenting with the page Chia Thye Poh on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Vsion 19:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I and animals

Nice additions there. Arrow740 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye and Good Luck

Satu Suro 10:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope to add up on Mike Gravel presidential campaign, 2008 if anything notable happens for him.DavidYork71 10:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else who was leaving said 'have fun bickering'. It's a snarky thing to say. There's fun to be had reading the bickering at Islam and slavery DavidYork71 10:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intimate sexual activity with child spouses (Shia View)

The Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Mosavi Khomeini, who represents Shi'a Islam, has defined the following limits and consequences for adult sexual activity with children relevant to Islam:

"A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, other sexual acts such as foreplay, rubbing, and kissing allowed. A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged. If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man's four permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl's sister."^[1]^[2]^[3]

Autosodomy

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Autosodomy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 05:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts

Please send me an e-mail when you're done at I and S so I can do some editing. Arrow740 04:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also included something in the e-mail that might help you. Arrow740 04:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2007

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Yoga. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Buddhipriya 06:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TPG

Your solicitation for GA review of Islam and slavery on unrelated articles is disruptive. Cease this at once. (→Netscott) 08:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No.DavidYork71 08:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CANVASSING

Please stop solicitating Islam and slavery in unrelated articles on Wikipedia. They are considered canvassing and are unacceptable within Wikipedia. This is your last warning. Any more canvassing will result in a block. --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Contribs 09:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and Slavery GA

I have reviewed it and granted GA once before it was badly edited with a lot of POV statements and edit warring. I don't review the same article twice. — Indon (reply) — 10:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Civility. WP:Good faith and WP:Wikiquette restrain any response whatsoever from me :) Satu Suro 10:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for canvassing despite repeated warnings (see above). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text .

Orderinchaos 11:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DavidYork71 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

any canvassing for GA editors after complaints about disruption on article talk pages were addressed to user talk pages and as such may not fairly be characterised as disruptive to article editorship

Decline reason:

As per Netscott's comments below. — Yamla 14:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You were engaging in quid pro quo GA reviewing and canvassing towards those ends. Your actions were an attempt to game the GA system. As well you knowingly avoided your block with an IP as this revert demonstrates. Very disruptive. (→Netscott) 14:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another offence

Adding "autosodomy" [4] to the list of yoga practices was also pretty disruptive but as I find you've already been blocked I'll just leave as a blot on your track record. --BozMo talk 16:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga is inclusive of all static exercise involving only the body. Autosodomy yoga is within that and autosodomy is itself a yogic exercise. Numerous yoga stances may be maintained in positions where full or partial autosodomy is also attained. And yogic disciplines may assist in attaining autosodomy (for the few and the brave).DavidYork71 16:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in case you didn't know

If you deside to take a break from editing wikipedia again, you can just tag your page with {{wikibreak}} instead of giving an explanation at the top of your talk page. See Wikipedia:Wikibreak for futher information.--Sefringle 23:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright release request to al@solosuck.com

Dear Mr Al Eingang,

this request relates to the attached image for which you are the copyright owner. Would you be willing to release copyright in the image for the purpose of its appearance in the online wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org)? Alternatively, could you provide other free images for this purpose? It is proposed for the image to feature on the 'Autosodomy' article page or the autosodomy subsection of the 'sodomy' article.

The image will appear with such attribution and commentary as you may helpfully provide eg. information about its source.

Any other information about autosodomy culture and practice (attributable to a reliable source for encyclopaedic content purposes) that you may be able to refer me to would also be useful for inclusion in the article.

Yours Sincerely, etc.DavidYork71 06:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom
^ http://www.homa.org/Details.asp?ContentID=2137352748
^ http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/tahrir/tahrir25.htm#a4 Original(in Arabic)

[1] Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom

[2] ttp://www.homa.org/Details.asp?ContentID=2137352748

[3] ttp://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/tahrir/tahrir25.htm#a4 Original(in Arabic)

[1]

[2]

[3]