Talk:Kia Abdullah

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- KGV 04:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: Are you sure she's muslim now? 69.155.132.24 (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the available evidence including her website and writings, yes. Do you think she's not? 138.37.199.206 (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: She's a western muslim; meaning she can write about sex ;)Isabelle 67 (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no such thing as a western or eastern Muslim. She is a Muslim (brought up in Bangladeshi Muslim family), as she says herself in various articles in the Guardian. Whatever she writes about in her stories or articles, does not affect her beliefs. Mohsin (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Quite so. I was answering the other poster who implied that because of her coming to prominence with western attitudes if she could still be called a 'muslim'. I concur with you thou, she is of course a muslim.Isabelle 67 (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: She's not a muslim. She self describes on her website as a 'secret agnostic'. Not that it matters, as this silly 'religion' is not mentioned in the wiki, thankfully. --62.31.52.225 (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  muslim? 

message: Under References, links 4 and 5 say nothing about the subject. Link 6 appears to be a dead link, unless someone can correct me. Isabelle 67 (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links? 

message: Why is any reference to the offensive twitter comments this woman made on 1st July 2011 in response to the deaths of 3 gap year students instantly removed?  They are clear as day on her twitter account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.42.8 (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, it is a legitimate edit.  I have placed a reference against your post so there shouldn't be any need to debate the matter further. Ganglandboss (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: It is interesting to note that there's no more than a passing resemblance between 86.178.42.8's comments above, and what was actually going on in the article at the time. It's so easy to say things like "cover up" and "any reference ... instantly removed" but, my word, it works a lot better if it actually makes sense or is remotely truthful. There was no cover up. DBaK (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover up of Quotes 

message: Why does this page even exist, seems to me anyone can have a wiki page these days. shameful!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapidlaser (talk • contribs) 21:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems to have been here since 16 February 2006 (see revision history though you can't always 100% trust it I think). Of course long life of an article is no guarantee but is maybe not wholly insignificant either. It seems to satisfy the policy on Notability. However, if you think it doesn't, then this section of that policy gives information on how to challenge its existence and try to get it deleted. Hope this helps, best wishes, DBaK (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus page 

message: I have removed the 'Quotes' section of this article, as it doesn't really belong here: lists of personal quotes belong on Wikiquote, not Wikipedia. They're only worth mentioning here if they're particularly significant. In this case, the only quote of hers that's received comment from third parties is the 'gap year' one; but as that's already mentioned above in the article, I removed it as well. Robofish (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move - now you mention it, it was a bit nonstandard and (perhaps) promotional-looking, and I agree the article looks better without. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes section removed 

message: I think it would make sense to create a new section that covers the twitter incident as I don't believe it actually falls as part of her career.
Do you not think it is appropriate to add a new section specifically for it?
Livebythe (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not really. I feel as it it would give undue weight to this one thing. It's just another thing that she did - we don't need a separate section for each book or job either; and we won't need a separate section for the next thing that she does either, whether it is good or bad, unless it is truly a quite separate thing in some astonishing way. It would make it a very strange and unbalanced article if we did this. As for the career thing, well yes I think it probably does - it was only relevant because she was already in the public eye - if you or I had put our feet in our mouths like that no-one much one have given a monkey's, but she attracted attention because she was already known. And the people calling for her to be sacked obviously thought it was a career thing, or they wouldn't have put such effort, it seems to me, into calling for her sacking. So no, I think it's fine how it is - it is there for all to read, and is not unduly prominent. I don't see why a new section is necessary or desirable. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of a new section "Twitter Controversy" 

message: Creating this in response to June 2023 edits, particularly the use of the word "mocks". This seems like a bad-faith to me, but am hoping that more experienced admins will weigh in. BritBengalis (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @DBaK, you may be able to weigh in? BritBengalis (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context to 2011 article 

message: Hi, I'm afraid I'm in danger of getting into an edit war with @90.242.60.107. Their edit repeats claims by a right-wing newspaper here as fact. I've appealed to them to discuss it with me in this Talk page or theirs but they have continue to revert my edits without engaging in the discussion. I've raised a Talk topic above but haven't had any input from other users yet. Any advice on next steps would be appreciated.
--BritBengalis (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The best way to avoid edit warring is to not edit war, irrespective of what others do. Only you can control what you do. If others are edit warring and refuse to discuss this matter or engage in dispute resolution, it should be reported to the edit warring noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for administrator