Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Abkarhussein

2007-10-02T02:45:53Z

Abkarhussein:

{{Welcome|sig=[[User:MattM|MattM]] 22:40, 1 October 2007 (EDT)}}

My thanks to you, and apology accepted from GregLarson (I can see where the misunderstanding came from). My main aim at the present time is to raise the issue of an offensive message on a users main page, however if this is settled I may stay and help to build the encyclopedia, I have a sound knowledge of Islamic religion and customs

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

2007-10-02T02:39:42Z

Abkarhussein:

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]]

== Why don't you delete the recently added article about [[Woody Allen]]? ==
That article is just great. Really "nuanced". It is a shining example of a great contribution to this site. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]

:There is a difference between a biography and a piece dealing with opinion information. I believe if you were to create small biographies on notable people that you would not see your work removed. I also believe that you are probably aware of the difference, but are complaining simply because you do not like it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:44, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::I really don't disagree with you. Sysop Conservative originally stated that my article was not "nuanced". By pointing out some articles that are very small, incomplete and lop-sided I was trying to show that writing an "un-nuanced" article was not cause for deletion, it is cause for editing. Also, this particular article on Woody Allen is only a biography in disguise. When the only thing you can highlight about the life and career of a celebrated and revered actor, writer and director is that he married his 27 years old adopted daughter, it is an opinion piece. Respectfully [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]

:::Woody Allen is an important biographical figure and isn't going to be deleted (of course). The beauty of this site is that you can add Woody's accomplishments in other areas and fill out his biopgraphy. But please understand as well that in a site that wishes to provide a family values environment, that Woody's conduct that could be considered to have gone over that line is fair game. On the other hand, articles that by their very nature deal with opinion information can be held to a different standard. Conservative is a trusted and respected Sysop who has many thousands of edits and has contributed greatly to the Conservapedia site. It may be best to work with what he told you to create an article that can address his concerns. And, as you also see, your concerns are being taken seriously. A number of important Sysops have given their input, and TK has even tried to email you your original work. While it is sometimes difficult, the key is not to take the article removal personally, but to work with the information you have been given to produce a more universally accepted product. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

== spammer.. ==

new user:liberalsrulelol
created offensive spam article "Horus"
--[[User:CastleVania|Lorrie]] 22:48, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Also, is this the right way to report spam? Seemed to be but I'm not sure. --[[User:CastleVania|Lorrie]] 22:49, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks, took care of the problem--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:49, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== Insult Against Muslims ==

Dear Conservapedia, I am writing in response to a message found on Conservative's main userpage. It features a photo of three Muslim women with the caption:

''Evolutionist Charles Darwin in his private notebooks wrote that he was a materialist which is a type of atheist. However, Darwin publicly maintained he was not an atheist. Above is a never before released color enhanced photograph of Charles Darwin stealthily on his way to a atheist convention. (Charles Darwin is the individual on the far left of the picture).''

I believe I am not the only one who finds this photo offensive. Not only does it promote a clear breach of Islamic law (men are not allowed to wear the Burka, Islam does not allow for cross dressers) but it also implies that the Muslim women are atheists attending an atheist convention. Is this some way of saying that Islam is not a true religion?

I understand that this is a Christian encyclopedia, but racism against a religion should not be tolerated, especially when said encyclopedia upholds American values such as religious liberty. I ask that this photo be removed, and that Conservative leave this discussion up for other users to debate.

Thankyou
Abkar Hussein

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

2007-10-02T02:38:24Z

Abkarhussein: Insult Against Muslims

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]]

== Why don't you delete the recently added article about [[Woody Allen]]? ==
That article is just great. Really "nuanced". It is a shining example of a great contribution to this site. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]

:There is a difference between a biography and a piece dealing with opinion information. I believe if you were to create small biographies on notable people that you would not see your work removed. I also believe that you are probably aware of the difference, but are complaining simply because you do not like it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:44, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::I really don't disagree with you. Sysop Conservative originally stated that my article was not "nuanced". By pointing out some articles that are very small, incomplete and lop-sided I was trying to show that writing an "un-nuanced" article was not cause for deletion, it is cause for editing. Also, this particular article on Woody Allen is only a biography in disguise. When the only thing you can highlight about the life and career of a celebrated and revered actor, writer and director is that he married his 27 years old adopted daughter, it is an opinion piece. Respectfully [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]

:::Woody Allen is an important biographical figure and isn't going to be deleted (of course). The beauty of this site is that you can add Woody's accomplishments in other areas and fill out his biopgraphy. But please understand as well that in a site that wishes to provide a family values environment, that Woody's conduct that could be considered to have gone over that line is fair game. On the other hand, articles that by their very nature deal with opinion information can be held to a different standard. Conservative is a trusted and respected Sysop who has many thousands of edits and has contributed greatly to the Conservapedia site. It may be best to work with what he told you to create an article that can address his concerns. And, as you also see, your concerns are being taken seriously. A number of important Sysops have given their input, and TK has even tried to email you your original work. While it is sometimes difficult, the key is not to take the article removal personally, but to work with the information you have been given to produce a more universally accepted product. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

== spammer.. ==

new user:liberalsrulelol
created offensive spam article "Horus"
--[[User:CastleVania|Lorrie]] 22:48, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Also, is this the right way to report spam? Seemed to be but I'm not sure. --[[User:CastleVania|Lorrie]] 22:49, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks, took care of the problem--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:49, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== Insult Against Muslims ==

Dear Conservapedia, I am writing in response to a message found on Conservative's main userpage. It features a photo of three Muslim women with the caption:

''Evolutionist Charles Darwin in his private notebooks wrote that he was a materialist which is a type of atheist. However, Darwin publicly maintained he was not an atheist. Above is a never before released color enhanced photograph of Charles Darwin stealthily on his way to a atheist convention. (Charles Darwin is the individual on the far left of the picture).''

I believe I am not the only one who finds this photo offensive. Not only does it promote a clear breach of Islamic law (men are not allowed to wear the Burka, Islam does not allow for cross dressers) but it also implies that the Muslim women are atheists attending an atheist convention. Is this some way of saying that Islam is not a true religion?

I understand that this is a Christian encyclopedia, already someone has suggested that I get a new name (I do not personally find anything wrong with my name), but racism against a religion should not be tolerated, especially when said encyclopedia upholds American values such as religious liberty. I ask that this photo be removed, and that Conservative leave this discussion up for other users to debate.

Thankyou
Abkar Hussein