Lskil09

Welcome

Hello, Lskil09, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Gateway Family Church, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! RadioFan (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Help request

(I moved this over from User talk:Lskil09/Gateway Family Church. In future, please put help requests here on your own talk page, thanks  Chzz  ►  11:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

{{helpme}}

I want to publish this page. How do I do it?

thanks! L

Hi. All you need to do is, copy it over into the live area.

Go into the article, 'select all', and 'copy'.

Then, search for 'Gateway Family Church'. When it says, 'No article title matches', click on 'Create the page'. Paste in your work, and in the edit summary box put a suitable comment, such as 'creating a new page'. Save it, and that's it.

If you have problems, please ask for help again - either with another {{helpme}}, or you could talk to us live. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  11:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Gateway Family Church has been deleted once because of copyright concerns. Looking at the new article it appears that these problems have been resolved, good job! However, I'm still concerned that this article may not meet notability guidelines. Has this church received significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. The references listed in the page now are primary sources (either press releases, and links to websites run by the church itself or organizations connected to the church) which don't help establish notability. Has this church received any coverage in newspapers or magazines?--RadioFan (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help.

I have highlighted the Newspaper articles and Press Releases from third party organisations that relate to the article.

Kind regards!! L

May 2009

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Tibetan eye chart, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Gimme danger (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, sorry I didn't realise.

Kind regards, L --Lskil09 (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Tibetan eye chart

As I see, you have added a note "However, the International Orthoptic Association has found no scientific evidence of this treatment." into the article "Tibetan eye chart" ([1]). Would you consider adding some sort of reference for that sentence? It would be nice to have at least something in that article cited to a reliable source, and none of the sources provided in this article at the moment seem to be obviously reliable (see Talk:Tibetan eye chart#Sources)... I am afraid that otherwise adding "{{Notability}}" tag to that article (and maybe even sending it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) might become necessary... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I can do this. Just give me a few hours to add the links you requested. ta, L --Lskil09 (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Boldface

I notice that you are using boldface a lot. Wikipedia's "house style" prescribes that boldface should be used sparingly; in fact only in a few special cases.--Srleffler (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Will do. Thanks for letting me know. --Lskil09 (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your message "Hacking into my account"

I haven't written any message on your talk page. I take it you are referring to these messages?. If so, there's no problem, you probably have a dynamic ip address, which someone else has previously used for vandalism. And you saw the message before logging in, right? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 16:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there - yes sorry about that. I thought that it was my account, but then i realised it was just the person who edited that page before me who had the problem. (No worries). Thanks! --Lskil09 (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Puin

Ohlig & Puin's 2008 book "Hidden Origins of Islam : New Research into Its Early History" is a translation of the 2006 German collection "Die dunklen Anfänge: neue Forschungen zur Entstehung und frühen Geschichte des Islam", which can be examined at Google Books. [2]

The chapter by Puin (p. 317 et seq) discusses the spelling/interpretation of some pre-Islamic names in the Quran. It does not mention the Sanaa manuscripts once, and in no way can it be presented as "a thesis for the Yemini Government on the key findings of the commissioned project".

Finally, it is no more than the truth that the claims being made by the Saarland apologists are regarded by the rest of Western academia as coming from the lunatic fringe, and anything but mainstream. The comments quoted at the Christoph Luxenberg article are typical, if anything the full reviews you can read linked from that page are even more savage. The latest claim now from some of the group, that Mahommed never actually existed at all as an individual, is frankly bizarre, and has achieved no acceptance. (eg: "remains unpersuasive" is G.R. Hawting's considered albeit diplomatic summary, reviewing the book for Journal of Quranic Studies, Volume 8, Pages 134-137 (August 2006)). Jheald (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Regarding your paragraphs above:

P1. FYI: The German version was first published in 2005, not 2006. Also, the English publication of this book only received restricted distribution in 2008, but is due for larger release Aug 09. As Google Books don't link the German title of this book to the English translation, I think a reference to the English makes more practical sense in Wikipedia/English.

I was merely pointing out that the text was accessible, so it is possible to check whether the claims you were making about it stand up. They don't. Jheald (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

P2. Being commissioned to oversee the manuscript project by the Yemeni government, Puin "does" present his book as a thesis on his key findings for both us and them.

(Although he wasn't commissioned by them to write a book, it still stands that he was commissioned to oversee the project and this experience cannot be discounted from the credibility of his research.)

Puin nowhere states that he is presenting his text for the Yemeni government. Any claim that it is "for" the Yemeni government is therefore your own WP:Original research.

More fundamentally, if you actually read the paper by Puin in the book, you will find in it he is not presenting findings based on his work on the Sana'a manuscripts. Everything in his chapter is argued on the basis of the standard received text of the Qur'an.

P3. Before commenting, I'll actually quote G.R. Hawting in context:

"This is a collection, then, that contains some useful, informative and thoughtful work. While the thesis argued in what might be called it's core chapters remains unpersuasive, they nevertheless refer to some puzzling evidence that must be taken into account by anyone concerned by a period that is, indeed, in many ways obscure."

If you subscribe to this journal, I suggest you pay attention to this recent article: Volume 10, Page 72-97. In this currently obscure period of history, all informative discussion must be taken into account by those who are honestly after the truth.

I am sorry, but why exactly do you think that the fact that the Qur'an has been copied onto different sized bits of paper is so interesting?

Otherwise re Hawting's review, a more realistic assessment is to note that he's a former graduate student of John Wansbrough, and particularly open to the idea of revisions to Islamic history. Of all the mainstream historians you could find to review the book, you might expect him to be the most sympathetic. Yet even he dismisses its core thesis as "unpersuasive". Jheald (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(As I didn't refer to Christoph Luxenberg, his book or his claims, or the debate about whether Muhammad existed, I wont comment on this - except to say that I agree his claims go further than Puin's).

Except that what you actually quoted was the publisher's blurb for this book, which is particularly based on the paper by Luxenberg in the book. Jheald (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As a final note, I'll also refer you to Arabica (Vol 55, 2008), which certainly doesn't paint the picture of Puin as a "lunatic" author:

"The scholarly basis of this important proposal [a new cultural interpretation of the rapid expansion of Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries CE] resides on the one hand on the observation that there is a striking lack of original written material which attests to the doctrine that we know today as Islam, from this early pre-Abbasid period. On the other it is underpinned by detailed study of the textual material which does derive from this era, as well as careful interpretation of the many written sources which became available after the beginning of the Abbasid ascendancy. However, if Islam during this era did not resemble what we know it as today, what was it? On this point the authors break unity, some giving bold, alternative interpretations, others working at the question from detailed, nuanced angles. What the current volume succeeds in doing is to refocus attention on [longstanding beliefs regarding the origins of Islam], and to situate the scholarly problem in very legitimate religious, political, cultural, and linguistic questions, within the context both of new scholarly interpretations and findings, and state of the art overviews of long-discussed issues…the prospect of bringing the two perspectives [traditional and new] together holds the promise of a lively, interesting and new chapter in western Islamic studies."

--Lskil09 (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Taken from the publishers' own website. It might be a bit more credible if you could identify who wrote it.

Finally, note that very little of the book was "authored" by Puin. The book is a collection of papers, each from a different author, none of them particularly well-regarded. As I wrote above, Puin only contributed one short paper, quite abstruse, on the spelling/interpretation of some pre-Islamic names in the Quran. Jheald (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Gateway Church (Australia) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gateway Church (Australia) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gateway Church (Australia) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bleakcomb (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note that this discussion has now closed. Further responses made to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gateway Church (Australia) will not be responded to. If you wish for the article to be recreated, and have evidence for its notability, then a good idea is to work on the article as a page in your userspace and then to recreate it after it has been reviewed. If you would like a copy of the old article to be restored into your userspace to improve it, please let me know. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)