User talk:Atethnekos

This is something like Bahá'í Faith and Bábism which is not Muslim belief. Ahmadiyya is a NEW RELIGION with its own prophet...similar to Bahá'í Faith and Bábism which have their own prophet. Otherwise Judaism and christianity are supposed to be the same religion.. 68.100.172.139 (talk) 05:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Since its inception in 1889, the Aḥmadī movement has been one of the most active and controversial movements in modern Islam." — Friedmann, Yohanan (2014). "Aḥmadiyya". In Krämer, Gudrun; Matringe, Denis; Nawas, John; Rowson, Everett (eds.). Encyclopaedia of Islam (Third ed.). Brill Online. Retrieved July 8, 2014. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

IT IS A SUB*GROUP OF WHAT:

• 1-Sunni 87-89%
• 2-Shia 10-12%
• 3-Khawarij less than 1%

YOU CAN PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE with these Five-Percent Nation and Mahdavia..wherever they belong to!! otherwise YOU ARE CREATING new CATEGORIZATION???68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Any group or sect which cannot be classified under one of these is not a part of Dīn of Islam.
• If you believe that it is a part of Dīn of Islam, so place it under any one of these: Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij
• In addition, Alevi & Alawi are a part of the Dīn of Islam and THEY HAVE 1% population, then place it into template clearly
• Druze & Nizari ARE NOT SHOWN WHICH ARE MORE THAN 1% of Dīn of Islam, so place it into the template
• IF YOU CANNOT, I.E. YOU ARE NOT EXPERT ON THE TOPIC just stop it O. K.

68.100.172.139 (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No one is saying that they are major branches. You say that they are not part of the Dīn of Islam. That's great, maybe they aren't. We don't take a position on that. It does not matter what editors say nor even what the truth is. We just follow what reliable sources say; see the core policy WP:V. Friedmann, Yohanan (2014). "Aḥmadiyya". In Krämer, Gudrun; Matringe, Denis; Nawas, John; Rowson, Everett (eds.). Encyclopaedia of Islam (Third ed.). Brill Online. Retrieved July 8, 2014. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) That's a citation from a reliable source which says that Aḥmadiyya is a part of Islam. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 16:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Alevi & Alawi - THEY HAVE NEARLY 1% population of Dīn of Islam, then place it into template clearly!!
• Druze & Nizari ARE NOT SHOWN WHICH ARE MORE THAN 1% population of Dīn of Islam, so place it into the template

WHICH ARE NOT IN THE TEMPLATE WHY DONT YOU PUT OR LIST THEM IF AHMEDISM IS ANOTHER SECT PUT IT SOMEWHERE BUT IT ISNT THE EQUIV OF sunni more than a billion nor equiv of shi'ite more than a 100 million

• WHY dont you put Gülen movement next to Ahmadiyya

according to your logic?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.172.139 (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Islam (FRENCH) SO THAT you may perform the necessary corrections68.100.172.139 (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What are the necessary corrections? And why are they necessary? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

we have a template for sunni as well you can delete it since totally abscurd!68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The following groups have larger populations...

QuestION:WHAT IS SPECIAL ABOUT THESE THREE GROUP-SECT SO YOU LISTED THEM SEPARATELY?

QuestION:WHAT WAS YOUR CRITERIA NOT TO PUT ANY OTHER GROUPS LIKE Din-e Ilahi, Alawi, Khojas, Druzes, Alevi, and Gulen movement?

ANSWERS: ........Write Your Answers Here

in case of help dont hesitate to ask me but you should make the necessary corrections instead of getting angry

you dont also have to ask the same quest again and again

just do necessary corrections you know what yor mistakes are68.100.172.139 (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're discussing the template, just keep it to the template talk page. That's why I'm not responding here.

For the record, I haven't been angry in years. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned you at ANI, in regards to the IP spamming on your and Dougweller's talk pages, as well as a template talk page and general... confusion on his part. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Atethnekos. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard#Userspace drafts. John Carter (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Equating COI editing to driving while intoxicated and potentially killing people is entirely inappropriate. Please do not restore the image.--v/r - TP 03:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

this all seems somewhat past, although the sting is still lingering. Atethnekos i am a bit surprised by your behavior. Granted that TP was aggressive and grumpy. Nonetheless, as a philosopher and someone who participates in DR, surely you can step back and see what is going on. TP feels stigmatized for having admitted paid editing and feels hounded across WP for doing so. Its a sensitive thing. Maybe you were unaware of the drunk driving ad campaign underlying "friends don't let friends..." and just thought it was kind of funny, tongue-in-cheeky. You've been made aware that the joke stung somebody. By the person whose feelings it hurt. Instead of actually hearing the other guy you just stuck to your rights. Which you are free to do. Is that really who you want to be? Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised too. I disagree with so many things you've said here, I guess I just don't understand things well at all. For example, you link to . Well, what does that comment have to do with me? If I'm to assume good faith—and I always try to—I would assume that that is not talking about me. Because then it would be saying that I was equating COI editing with drunk driving, when I had already expressly communicated that I was not comparing COI editing with drunk driving. In that case the comment would be merely gainsaying my testimony about my own intentions without an argument as to why that testimony is false, and doing so without being forthright about it, and doing so when the case was already closed. Well, that's not a good faith assumption. So I don't assume it. I just assume that I don't know what that comment refers to.

Maybe that gives some insight into my the general principles behind my behaviour? This probably doesn't answer your question or concerns. I am of course willing to elaborate. There's just so much I could say in response to your comment here, I'm just afraid of saying too much at once. But I can give you a specific response to any part of your comment or to any other questions. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You did make it clear that it wasn't your intention to equate COI editing with drunk driving. I never said it was. But as you must know, once you say or write something, others will interpret it as they will. TP (and others) have explained that the phrase "friends don't let friends X" has its roots in a 40 year old and ongoing public education campaign about drunk driving and and that other uses arise from, and get their charge from, that campaign. Hopefully you are a big enough person to see that it is not a far leap for someone - especially someone who feels stigmatized over paid editing - to interpret the words in the framework of the drunk driving campaign. Now there are countless examples of people saying things that unintentionally hurt other people - this happens all the time. The question is, now that you know that your words hurt somebody what do you do? That is the character question here. Not your intention when you said it but rather what you do now. Jytdog (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't deny that it is not a far leap for someone to do that. I don't know if it is a leap at all. Here's maybe an example: An editor objects to someone's behaviour and says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" .

Do I deny that it is a far leap for someone to interpret those words in the framework of stoning women to death? I wouldn't deny that; that's actually one thing of which I myself think when I hear that phrase, since that's in which its roots are.

Could someone think that it's possible that the editor meant in some sense to compare the behaviour being decried and stoning women to death? Well, that's pretty harsh, but I suppose someone could do that. In that case, one could ask if that was what was meant. If the editor then responds that that was not what was meant, then I would think that the misunderstanding should thereby be sufficiently resolved.

Now, could someone not just think that it is possible that that is what was meant, but go farther and conclude with an assertoric statement that that is what was meant? That's, I would say, very harsh, but, again, someone could still do that. If the editor then responds and says that that is not what was meant, and then shows many examples from well-reputed, peer-reviewed, academic publications (etc.) having equivalent usages of the phrase which show that it is normal in mainstream, English-language civil discourse, then I would think that the misunderstanding should thereby be sufficiently resolved.

I think that that last case is equivalent to what happened here. You add to this that I now "know that [my] words hurt somebody". This is news to me. From what I can tell, the objections said nothing about being hurt. They said rather that my comment was "a polemic statement meant to piss people off" , that there was a "major ad campaign against drunk driving and [I've] tailored it to COI editing" , that it is has an "obscene" meaning and that I "intended that meaning all along" . Those objections said nothing about what the objector felt, but only about what I meant and what I intended (the objector supposedly having greater insight into those than me, which is false). Now, if what you're saying is true, then I apologize: I never meant to hurt anyone. Even if no one was hurt by my comment, I would avoid the phrase in similar contexts in the future. If what you're saying is true (and I don't deny it), then I would be even more careful in such avoidance of the phrase.

Also, I would have no problem with someone replacing the sentence with one with a similar meaning like "Someone who actually wants to help another person should not enable that person to do something which is destructive, including editing with a COI." I'm not sure if changing at this point would be helpful or could be done within the WP:TPG, so I wouldn't try it myself; but, again, I'd be completely fine with such a change.

The principle though that users' comments can be edited by others merely on the basis that they contain phrases that are supposedly or actually hurtful when those phrases are part of normal, civil discourse within academia, is a bad principle. Especially when done so without even an indication on the page that the comment was edited by someone else. It harms any rigorous grounding for determining what is civil and what is not, and this would exacerbate the problem of intractable disputes about civility. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You are making this way more complex than it needs to be. This is not abstract and theoretical; it is just a messy interaction typical of humans. You said something intended to be witty and what you said hurt someone's feelings. That person expressed their hurt in anger, as humans tend to do. You have reacted defensively, as humans tend to do. The simple thing for you to do is strike the comment and say:"hey sorry, didn't mean to hurt anybody's feelings". It is a simple thing. You of course are under zero obligation to do so and are free to be any kind of person you want to be. Good luck to you, however you choose to proceed. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Just want to add here... thanks for your patience in engaging with me. I said this in my first post above, but let me say it again to be sure. Editing for pay is a topic that raises intense emotion at WP. You probably know that. What you may not know is that about a year ago, TP mentioned casually on Jimbo's talk page that he wrote an article for pay and had someone else post it. Some editors immediately jumped on him for that (especially as he is an admin) and he feels that they have been harshly hounding him about it ever since. (I have heard this from several editors who have edited for pay - when they have disclosed their paid edits, some other editors have reacted harshly, personally, and sustainedly.... paid editing is evil in some editors' eyes and they pursue paid editors with some vengeance.) It is a very emotional issue here. TP can in general at times be harsh, and on this issue, (in my eyes) I have seen him act well, and act badly/harshly. Again, in my view, he mostly reacts badly when he feels he is already being judged harshly before the other person has even engaged with him and instead are engaging with an "evil paid editor". So yes he took your witty post very personally and very negatively and yes he deleted it. In my eyes, that was an over-reaction out of hurt and built up frustration and anger at other people. I think he could have handled that much better. So that is the background for his behavior, as far as I can see it. Perhaps you didn't know all that.

Your "friends don't let friends" comment was indeed sustained at ANI and is still on the Talk page and you are totally within your rights to keep it there. You are the "winner". Now... I am sure you have seen lots of disputes at DR where neither party did a great job explaining clearly where they were coming from and neither party tried very hard to hear where the other guy was coming from. And where neither party is willing to do the simple things it takes to move forward and leave the dispute behind. I hope this longer explanation was more helpful to you in understanding where TP is coming from (at least as far as I understand it). again, I came and wrote on your Talk page to say "hey, this is a festering thing and you could make it go away by simply striking (like this) your comment and making a "hey sorry didn't mean it that way" apology in your edit note. That's all. Is the comment itself so important to you? Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Please read up on WP:OUTCOMES before nominating articles for deletion. You may be able to yourself and other editors some work. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what this is in response to. I haven't been to AfD since this edit which does not seem related. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The following message left on my talk page may be of interest to you too:

"This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Historicity of Jesus". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 20:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)"

Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I saw on WP:SHARED that in 2012 you mentioned you have access to Springer Link. Is that still the case? If so, would you be able to provide me access to this article? I want to verify that all the information from Sexual dysfunction that's attributed the source is actually present in the article. A pdf would be ideal, but any kind of access would be wonderful. I do have email enabled, or you can reply here. Thank you! :) cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume you are maintaining Template:Bibleverse/Bibleversefinder. Please note that the NAB link is dead, but it can be found at Biblegateway and at . Also the New Jerusalem Bible is missing but can be found at . Thanks. trespassers william (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

gift on ideas
Thank you for quality articles on philosphy and its people, such as On Ideas and On the Pathos of Truth, for fighting for verifiability and "Dialogue should be conducted with freedom, but decisions should be constrained by reason", for adding a bird, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 642nd recipient of my Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Six years ago, you were recipient no. 642 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

http://tools.wmflabs.org/bibleversefinder

• The bibleversefinder tool hasn't worked for a month or so. Are you going to become active again, or do we need to pass the torch to someone else to maintain that tool? Also I have written a patch to the script to link to the new site for the NAB version.
  Cheers. —Telpardec  TALK  11:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Still broken Rmhermen (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Still, or again, broken. Capikiw (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

There was an email at WP:OTRS asking why the tool is still down. (OTRS Ticket) –Fredddie™ 00:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Atethnekos is gone. We probably need to find a new maintainer. See discussion here. —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (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) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Redwingedblackbird1.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Template:Citeplaton has been nominated for merging with Template:Citeplato. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Citebukhari has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Upgradestiki has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Quick facts Seven years! ...

Precious

Seven years!

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Citeplato has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dan from A.P. (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Coi hatnote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 16:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)