User:Bless sins/talk0

Talk archive 0.

You were caught
FYI, I have reverted your edit because you wrote exactly the opposite to the doc. you misquoted. The doc says: "... in the Jewish State there will be a considerable minority of Arabs." Care to explain? ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your text said "Thus the Jewish State would have a large Arab majority." The highlights are mine. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That was an honest mistake. Sorry about that. As you can see I have re-added the edits I did, but with that mistake corrected. Thanks for correcting me :-) Bless sins 17:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll assume good faith and accept that explanation. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Rania12.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rania12.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 13:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Sorry I forgot to respond to your question earlier. Please see WP:DAB. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

1947 UN Partition Plan
Hi - thanks for your note - I looked over it briefly and realized there is much I don't know about the exact history of ownership. The Palestinian Authority has recently obtained approval from Turkey to obtain records of land deeds of the Ottoman Empire era, but I don't know if they have been handed over yet. Since I have been swamped with work lately, I'll try to catch up on some reading and stop by that article again as soon as I can. Thanks. Ramallite (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Jamaat-e-Islami protection lifted
hey sameer, the protection has been lifted on Jamaat-e-Islami so you can edit now if you want to. Veej 21:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Help requested..
Waqas.usman Hi I need help in determining the approrpiate copyright info on a particular image. THe same image is available in other places. Also what type of sites can i go to to obtain appropriate images and maps.--Bless sins 02:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, let me see if I can help out. Regarding your first question, it looks like that image is one of those distributed by subscription news agencies, so it would be copyrighted. Regarding your second question, I think good places to find images are on Creative commons and Flickr.com (only the images released under a proper copyright). Sometimes you can find images with free copyrights on some government websites, and you can also contact the owner of an image and see if they will release its rights. Hope this helps&#160;—  The KMan  talk  03:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello Bless_sins. Converting that information into a table would not be considered. Please go right ahead. Thank you for your work! Jecowa 04:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Salam! There are other resources online where you can find royalty free pictures, one is http://sxc.hu (previous url was like http://stock-exchange.hu or something, for stock exchange of photos), many users on sxc have listed photos under "no usage restrictions", some "require attribution". Also, if you contact and request the photographers who have copyrighted photos, they'll generally allow, especially if you ask for a smaller size photo like 600 x 400, and give a link to their site. Also, you can use organizations' logos and other news related images under "Fair use" clause on en.wikimedia, but "Fair use" is not allowed on commons.wikimedia. Hope this helps. Waqas.usman 10:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Like this copyright image of Time Magazine cover on the right 11:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Article restoration
It's a bit long, so I've put the text at User:Bless_sins/Palestine. Hope this helps. Friday (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why was it deleted? How about writing one with a name like "Palestine land ownership pre 1948"? Waqas.usman 11:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There are several reasons. First of all I created in the middle of the debate, (but that doesn't mean it was a POV fork). Jayjg didn't like, and others agreed with him. Although, I have been thinking of putting the info from this article on to British Mandate of Palestine or just Palestine. It'd be great if u could helpBless sins 04:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Muslim world and 9/11
I've added 9/11 back into the list of pivotal recent events on the Muslim world article, because I don't see how the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq can be included without that context. I think the inclusion of the Cartoon controversy was, good, though. Nloth 00:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I'm glad you've decided to spend some time on this article. It sure needs some help at the moment. Nloth 07:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

About a dispute...
I'm quite confused about a dispute between me and some other members on the page: Islam and anti-Semitism. It is not really a "dispute", since NOBODY has responded to anything on the talk page. What is happening is that someone is reverting my edits constanstly. I've tried to edit the following:


 * Removed :"After Muhammad's efforts to convert the Jews of Yathrib failed [citation needed],", since nobody came up with a source for that.


 * Removed: "since the Sabbath is a commandment which (according to Islam) God demanded of Jews but not of his other followers", since nobody came up with a source for that.


 * Put the Quranic verses (The Proof 6-7) in context. I have merely completed the quote.
 * Created a new section called "Historic and modern Muslim respect for Jews", because "Muslim denunciation of Anti-Semitism" doesn't fit into the "Historic events of Muslim persecution of Jews" section.


 * Added one more prominent Muslim (i.e. Harun Yahya) who opposes anti-Semitism.

I've posted this info on the talk page, but no one seems to respond to me. All the users seem to be interested in is reverting my edits. Can you please comment on what's going on? I seriously don't understand.Bless sins 03:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Bless sins, I looked at the page and it looks like all users are reverting your edits. Any unsourced infromation (from edit history) is to be reverted almost at once. If the user keeps doing this you post to his/her talk page. As far as I can see the article needs some cleanup. I'm going to read it again and if I think it needs cleanup, I am going to add it. If the users are posting to the talk page it means they are fooling around and not asking others what they think. It might be worthy if this page was protected. ForestH2

Any unsourced infromation can be deleted right away. Tell me if you think the article needs to be cleaned up. ForestH2

You need to be posting to the user's talk page. Now that you mention it it needs cleanup but I suggest you write to the user's who are reverting your edits talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForestH2 (talk • contribs)

Would you request a cleanup for this article? As you mentioned in my talk page I can see it sort of needs a cleanup. ForestH2

Something else...When I add the cleanup mark it will say "Please discuss this issue on the talk page" or you can do this... -

Hey, I was wondering if you could help me out with this. Recently, a whole section was removed from the article Islam and anti-Semitism. This section was called "Historic Muslim respect for Jews", a parallel to the section "Historic events of Muslim persecution of Jews". The argument underlying the removal was that this section "did not belong to the article".

Firstly, did the section indeed not belong to the article?

Secondly, if it didn't, is there another article in wikipedia where this section would belong.

Thirdly, would it be appropriate to create an article which accomodates this section along with other views.11:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would say that the section certainly does belong in the article. It is well written and seems to represent a neutral point of view, so I see no reason to remove it. I would suggest discussing the issue with User:Pecher on his talk page. I think he probably removed it because the article is titled Islam and Anti-Semitism, but I think a separate article for Muslim respect toward Jews would be unnecessary. Thanks. I hope this helps. -- Tantalum Telluride 17:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to that now, but...Bless sins 18:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Edits
(say what you need to say)

Just something to think about..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForestH2 (talk • contribs)

Transforming into lowly animals
I think there is a similarity among the following verses:


 * "Those who unjustly eat up the property of orphans, eat up a Fire into their own bodies: They will soon be enduring a Blazing Fire!" (Qur'an 4:10)


 * " O ye who believe! Avoid suspicion as much (as possible): for suspicion in some cases is a sin: And spy not on each other behind their backs. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Nay, ye would abhor it...But fear Allah. For Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful. " (49:12)


 * "And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected." (2:65)

--Aminz 22:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain the similarity. Also your help would be appreciated in removing unsourced material from Islam and anti-Semitism.Bless sins 22:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel the Qur'an is using a special language. I don't think "eating the flesh of his dead brother" seems better than being "apes". Lot's of Muslims really do "spy on each other behind their backs". My brother, I am not an interpreter of Qur'an. I just feel that they are transformed form of the sin itself but maybe in another dimention. I don't know. I will try to contribute to the article as soon as I get free from school work (i.e. after my finals that finish in two weeks from now I think) Take care. --Aminz 23:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia
Greetings Bless sinsl, I was wondering if you might express your editorial view on this bottom section of talk on this article? Thanks. Netscott 14:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * SOrry, the debate is about a lot of things I'm not well-versed in. I'd keep away at this point.Bless sins 10:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Islam-bashing on Wikipedia
Hi. I noticed your edits on the Zionism page. There's a pretty well-organized group (groups?) of people here who seek to defame Islam every chance they get. This is being done by whitewashing Muslim contributions in history, presenting less-than-credible arguements from partisan sources aimed at generalizing Muslims, etc. I hope I can ask you to help if there's a conflict with some of these articles. If you're familiar with other Muslims here, tell them to keep an eye out for this kind of defamatory content. If you need my help with any article pertaining to Islam or Muslims, I'd be glad to help if it's in my power to do so. Thanks. Amibidhrohi 14:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You can count on my help ;-). Yes there are some article I need help with: Islam and anti-Semitism, and Rules of war in Islam. Although I doubt the existence of a "group", most people are just bieng silly and ignorant. Bless sins 17:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Islam and anti-Semitism
The article happens to have the title that it has; citing one part of the article to justify edits to a different part of the article is inappropriate. The function of the intro is to summarize the article, not to dictate its content. BTW, I always respond on the other user's talk page. Pecher Talk 18:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So Pecher, do you suggest the section "Historic Muslim respect for Jews" be moved to another article, or a seperate article should be created for it? Or should somehow be re-incorporated back in the Islam and anti-Semitism article (as User:TantalumTelluride proposes).Bless sins 18:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It definitely has no place in Islam and anti-Semitism. You may try to find for it a place elsewhere on Wikipedia or even start a new article; it's entirely up to you. However, I doubt that an article titled "Historic Muslim respect for Jews" will endure for long due to the definitely POVish nature of the title. Pecher Talk 18:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well we have articles like Persecution of Jews and Persecution of Muslims. Also, there is an article called Islam and anti-Semitism which is devoted entirely to one perspective - that Muslims have always persecuted Jews (contrary perspectives are deleted).Bless sins 19:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Do we have an article Respect for Muslims? You needn't post on my talk page that you have responded: I'll be watching your talk page, while our discussion continues. Pecher Talk 19:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is an article Christian opposition to anti-Semitism. However, it is currently suggested that the two articles (Christianity and anti-Semitism and Christian opposition to anti-Semitism) be merged.Bless sins 19:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is also an article Christian-Jewish reconciliation, similar to "Modern Jewish-Muslim dialogue" section that was deleted by you.Bless sins 19:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the whole point: if the section in question showed Muslim opposition to anti-Semitism, it would definitely had a place in the article. Respect is not equivalent to opposition to anti-Semitism. Pecher Talk 19:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again. You deleted sections like "Modern Jewish-Muslim dialogue" and "Muslim denunciation of anti-Semitism". These were DEFINETLY relevent.Bless sins 19:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We discussed the "Muslim denunciation of anti-Semitism" and the view of editors other than yourself was that the examples cited there were actually anti-Semitism disguised as opposition to anti-Semitism. Pecher Talk 19:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The cited examples were, perhaps, anti-Zionist; but definetly NOT anti-Semitic. Also, no author was able to provide sources that called MWU and Harun Yahya anti-Semitic. Anti-Semetic allegations were purely WP:OR.Bless sins 19:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And how do you explain the removal of "Modern Jewish-Muslim dialogue".Bless sins 19:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Denial to the Jews a right to their own state constitutes a part of what is known as New anti-Semitism. The section "Modern Jewish-Muslim dialogue" was also not obviously related to the subject of the article; in addition, it contained only one reference to ahighly dubious source discussing a non-notable organization. Anyway, if you wish to continue the discussion, I propose to move it to the article's talk page, as other editors might also be interested in it, and I see no reason to repeat here the points made on the article's talk. Pecher Talk 19:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a lot of experience in this subject, but I think a separate article for Muslim respect towards Jews might be OK. It will be imporatant to cite sources and maintain a neutral point of view, especially since you're dealing with a contentious subject. If you do create a new article, it can be linked from the "See also" section of the Islam and Anti-Semitism article. Another possible solution would be to move Islam and Anti-Semitism to Muslim Attitudes towards Jews or something similar which would be broad enough to include a section about Muslim respect towards Jews. Of course, you should seek consensus on the article's talk page before making such a major change to the title. -- Tantalum Telluride 19:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The idea of moving Islam and anti-Semitism to Muslim Attitudes towards Jews is quite appealing. I have always wanted to show two POVs side by side. What do you think Pecher?


 * I don't think that such a move will find broad support. Islam and Anti-Semitism badly needs cleanup, but also expansion given the wealth of available material that has not yet found its way into the article. Moving the entire article just to incorporate a small section would make the entire article look out of balance. Pecher Talk 19:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Jewish POV on Israeli Apartheid
Thank you for providing clear reasoning.75.2.106.46 19:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Assalam-o-Alliakum, Thank you for your visit of Dhimmi article. Please keep visiting it and help in correcting it. I will try to support your good edits. --- Faisal 03:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you please also look at Muhammad article. It also needs your support. Thank you. --- Faisal 22:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Assalam-o-Allaliakum, Just wanted to let you know that now the Dhimmi article is protected. It is good time to discuss things on the talk page. Please do not lose hope. They had removed the disputed-tag and to restore it I have to notify it on administrator pages. I hope to see you soon there. I really appreciate your effort and help. Wassalam --- Faisal 19:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

India -> India + Pakistan + Bangladesh
I and User:Rama's Arrow were discussing linkage of pages to India when refer to pre-1947 India (undivided India). Please have a look at discussion, and comment. You can also invite user interested in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. Following is statement to start:

'''India after 1947 consists of three countries, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. When we use word India, in articles, refereeing to whole India, links are such that they bring us to present day India (Republic of India), reducing size of pre-1947 India considerably. Is it possible that when we refer to pre-1947 India we use a term which encompasses whole India not just present day India? Please comment'''.

Following are suggestions: --Spasage 10:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * British India
 * Indian Subcontinent
 * Undivided India
 * or disamg page of India.

Welcome back. --Aminz 08:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Salam
Please have a look at this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Third_holiest_site_in_Islam_%28expression%29

Almaqdisi talk to me 05:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Re. Protecting "Religious significance of Jerusalem"
Hi. Actually, I prefer to stay away from editorial disputes in areas where I lack expertise, such as the religious significance of Jerusalem. I may suggest though adding an entry on WP:RFC in order to bring input from other users who might not be aware of this dispute. Regards.-- Hús  ö  nd  00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, once you reach an agreement just request unprotection on WP:RPP or contact me. Regards.-- Hús  ö  nd  18:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Cooperation
PLEASE, let us work together. Before adding text or making a change, please keep it on the talk page. I will review it as much as I can. We can go step by step, with each edit, or each point. This is essential in preventing an edit war. Thank you. --Shamir1 07:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Scholar's ink hadith
Hiya Bless Sins. From what I can tell from online sources, I know this is a "weak" hadith (saying) of the Prophet, but I'm have a had time dating it to its earliest written source. I think it goes as far back as 1000AD, though after a while all these Islamic authors names start to blur (do they have to all be named "Al"? ), and I don't really know who's who to begin with. Anyway, figuring this out is on my too do list for the pen is mightier than the sword.... -- Kendrick7talk 13:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Rania al-Baz
I have responded on the talkpage. KazakhPol 02:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

conflict with Shamir1
Hello. I think that unfortunately I cannot help you. Maybe be JayJg could do a better job... ? Alithien 14:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

deletion alert
The page you have edited # Terrorism against Israel, and some related pages, has been listed for proposed deletion. I have removed the deletion tag in order that there can be a full discussion., It will undoubtedly be listed on AfD within the next day or two. I take no position on the issue; I de-prod any page where I think may involve religious or political controversy to avoid possible bias by having a fuller discussion.DGG 00:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Hi! I see you have returned from your trip, happy new year. If you would like to participate, we can continue mediation. --Shamir1 00:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II
Hi! I saw your interests page, and I wish to explain a bit situation with mentioned history-related article.

In fact, we don't want to erase content of this, it will be merged into more global article like "Occupation of Ukraine".

Also, as you can notice, current version of article contains >50% about Holocaust, it's not the primary goal of it. If it will be merged into Occupation of Ukraine it will be more title-specific. Because at that times, there were Soviet people, not Ukrainians. And article particularly speaks about Jews.

Also, you mentioned, that article is referenced, but I want to tell you that most references are not valid, since citations were misinterpreted by editors. You can see talk page for more info. Briefly, the strongest accusations were provided from some journalist, which has only one article on history, and has no historical background at all.

Thanks for understanding, please provide your arguments. --Galkovsky 06:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning at Banu Qaynuqa
We restrict ourselves to reliable sources. The Sealed Nonsense makes no attempt to be a history book by the standards of modern scholarship. The same goes for Ibn Hisham. Thus these cannot be cited as main sources in a history article. Arrow740 16:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Beit Or has only reverted two times at that article, so far. I have been involved in disputes regarding The Sealed Nectar before. It's mostly dedicated to praising Muhammad and presenting the traditional Muslim view on his life. Arrow740 17:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was not aware of the first "revert." Anyway, a 3RR warning is a courtesy; I was doing you a favor. When you are in an edit war with someone you generally look for an opportunity to get that person blocked. If you had made another revert I would have reported you and you would have gotten a 24 hour block. Itaqallah has done this to me more than once. Arrow740 04:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Mullahcracy
You know full well that Mullahcracy is alive and well in Iran.--Patchouli 17:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sheikdom existed in Yemen, though it need to be have existed to qualify for addition to the template.--Patchouli 17:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to waste my time with a search engine now. But, I you kidding? You the definition. theocracy=government by god. Turning the Islamic law=legal code → theocracy. There is legal punishment in UAE for insulting Islam-related stuff.--Patchouli 15:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

France's thing is not based on religion - it is a secular restriction of freedom of speech. China restrict freedom of speech, but it isn't based on any religion. Gay rights in the United Arab Emirates are restricted based on Islam. On the other hand, see Gay_rights_in_China where gays were punish during the Cultural Revolution even though Chinese government was atheist. Punishment was not justified based on religion.

UAE is not a full-blown theocracy like Iran and for that reason scholars usually don't consider it a theocracy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/737620.stm doesn't say it is a theorcay. At the same time, scholars agree that many laws such as blasphemy laws, inheritance laws, marriage laws, etc. are based on sharia.

In the West, child pornography is crime with punishable with a heavy sentence. But the reasons provided by the government are not based on quotations from the Bible. --Patchouli 16:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Christian Right because Metropolitan Community Church is not opposed to gay marriage. So not all religious people are straight. Likewise, not all atheists support gay marriage. --Patchouli 16:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
I did not insist on picking Jayjg, as you know it was indirect. I kept trying to explain to you that because I wanted to make sure you understood there is no alliance between me or Alithien or Jayjg. Alithien was brought to a mediation from a post I believe, and as I have said before he did not favor my side. I did however, appreciate his mediating. Unlike my "opponent", his reasons made sense to me. I have never worked with Jayjg, nor have I talked to him about anything else but this recent mediation attempt. I did believe we should stick with him because he seemed neutral from the start. I was also afraid it would take even longer for another mediator. I was more insisting to just give mediation a chance, to hear what someone has to say. That was it. Thanks. --Shamir1 04:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said you should not file a request, in fact I encourage you to do it. Similar to Jayjg, I really do not know who Aminz is but I assume now that we would not get along and/or he would be on your side. I was not thinking of it as "OK, your turn to choose" or anything because there has not actually been a mediator yet, one referred us to another. I did believe we should stick with him because he waited for you per your request so we can actually start mediating, and when returned we could not. Otherwise, if you wish, post. Thanks. --Shamir1 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of Hindus
Thanks for your participation here. It is becoming very difficult to be engaged in this back and forth editing where the other side merely proclaims what they think is a fact, and edit (more accurately, delete) accordingly. It seems like as far as they're concerned, reliable sources and factual integrity are totally optional. MinaretDk 04:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please re-protect the article
Please re-protect the article Religious significance of Jerusalem. Talks are underway. Infact we have plans to fiel a mediation. We were jsut waiting for users fro the Rfc I posted. Unprotecting may create another edit-war.Bless sins
 * If edit-warring returns, the article can be re-protected or the offending parties warned / blocked for violating the three-revert rule. --  tariq abjotu  23:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Religious significance of Jerusalem, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

The munafiq
See the article on him. Why would they call him hypocrite if he wasn't Muslim? He's discussed at length in Ibn Hisham. He was called a hypocrite because he didn't entirely approve of everything Muhammad did despite being Muslim. Arrow740 08:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Re: Sources
Hello, It wasn't "my edit" per se, though I will look for some sourcing when I get a chance. I noticed that you didn't really have a problem with that section in your last edit, and so assumed that such a balanced passage wouldn't be a problem. I also left a note regarding the reversion of my redirect.  Tewfik Talk 21:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Re :J'ai besoin de ton aide
Hi ,I've received your message on my talk page. Well, the user:Moez ,who lives in USA , is active on wp:fr and wp:en. He participates in editing pages about Islam but he has been inactive since a while. I think he will be back soon and you can see with him. Omar

1996 ed
as you are using the 1996 ed. (i have access to the 200X ed, can't remember which exactly), i thought it would be better to standardise all the refs to one version. as such could you provide the p. # for this cite? thank you. ITAQALLAH  21:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * many thanks. ITAQALLAH   21:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza
Hallo,
 * I did not wish to accuse you of hatred of Jews, though I see that my comment could be misunderstood as making a positive statement. Take out the "his" and this is solved. I was speculating on whether you are doing what you are doing deliberately or whether something was blinding you (and what that something could be). I know you much too little to accuse you of the above.
 * I see that the short form BS can be misunderstood and will, if brevity is required, merely say "Bless" or B, if not your user name.
 * "Mr M" was an expression used by me before Maududi came along. I don't think I have used it when it could be ambiguous. If so, I will not do it again. However, I see nothing disrespectful in this.
 * I don't know what you mean by "all respected non-Muslims". Can you please tell me whether I am respected.
 * If I will respond to your "request" I will to so on the article talk page.

Str1977 (smile back) 19:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Native speaker
Hi bless sins,

Just wondering if you are a native english speaker. If so, whenever you got free, could you please take a look at and the Foundational Motif section, and improve the section's grammer/english. Thanks --Aminz 00:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Greatly appreciated. --Aminz 06:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada
Hi BlessSins, Is there any way to help with the merge of the above page to Al-Aqsa Intifada? What's there that is not on the other page and how can I help you bring over in a NPOV way? Elizmr 17:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

3 revert rule
Beit Or has file a 3RR violation report against you in order to get you blocked.  If I were you, I would self revert fast to so as not to get blocked. Good Luck! Abu ali 22:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As you know WP:3rr doesn't apply to obvious vandalism. WP:3rr This vandalism is defined as, under blanking: "Removing all or significant parts of pages or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus both constitute vandalism." This is balatant in the edit war.

I even stated that in the edit summary of one of the reverts in question, and on talk page.Bless sins 15:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you for what it's worth Abu ali 19:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, having read the AfD and all the reverts, for what its worth so do I. Sorry, but I think you'll be back soon. However, I think next time you get (rightly) upset you need to avoid sailing too close to the wind on 3RR and try to concentrate on presenting your case. Reverting is pointless anyway so try 1RR ? --BozMo talk 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar
I associate myself fully with Beit Or's comments. I read the talk page before editing. It is important that we realize that even well-qualified people display plain POV's. Watt thought that Muhammad was divinely inspired and a great man, others disagree. We need to portray the facts from a neutral point of view. Arrow740 01:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
--Aminz 05:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac's comments
Trust me, Bless sins, though we may not always agree, I honestly in good faith believe your edits not to be very neutral. But, I certainly see why you'd think this article needs some balance. Forcing everyone to choose between two biased versions guarantees edit wars, which is exactly what has been happening. As long as we're not talking about religious/partisan or extremist sources, we don't have that to worry about, which makes compromise much easier. I've recent made two edits to the other version which atribute controversial claims to individual scholars (Stillman and Vaglieri respectively) in an attempt to address the problems I see with that version. So why not calm down and give it a shot? The current path isn't working out for anyone, is it?Proabivouac 06:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Religious significance of Jerusalem
Al-sala'am alaykum wa rahmatu Allahi wa baraka'atuh. If that is the case my brother, I will back down from editing this article for now. But tell what initially happened that we have flying plates over this article. - Qasamaan
 * No it's okay. I understood the request part. I'll take that into consideration. - Qasamaan 20:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Question
This book... I had already since you had posted the question on Aminz's talkpage, and was thinking about it. I don't know: I guess it depends what it is talking about. e.g. there are lots of medieval "life of Christs" which we do not count as reliable dispite being notable because of when they were written. Who published the translation? I guess I would try to start an article on WP about the book, including why you reckon it is notable and provide enough context for people to know when it is reliable and when not? It may not survive but it is does you'd be a lot of the way there. --BozMo talk 20:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it also depends where you want to use it. If you want to cite it as a sample Muslim view, that would work I think. --Aminz 00:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD Islamic socialism
You have edited the article Islamic socialism. This article is currently being considered for deletion under the wp:afd process. You may contribute to this discussion by commenting here. Thank you. Edivorce 01:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I also think it your suggestion makes sense. Cheers, --Aminz 23:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Kinana passage
Look, I've given a brief, factual, non-sensationalistic and studiously disinterested version which is significantly more nuetral than either Beit Or's proposed version or what was there before. What's the point of aiming for neutrality if you just resume fighting to split the remaining difference? I brought Watt's view in fairly, I insisted on attribution of controversial language (e.g. "pogroms"), backed you in changing section titles, and for what? Let's move on to your other points, can we?Proabivouac 21:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "I brought Watt's view in fairly, I insisted on attribution of controversial language (e.g. "pogroms"), backed you in changing section titles, and for what?" For a gain to be pocketed and more demanded. Beit Or 22:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Bless sins, I am beginning to wonder if compromise with you isn't futile. It doesn't bother me that you have a point of view, and it doesn't really bother me that you push it. What bothers me is that you push it, push it, and push it, every day returning to push it some more. Here I made it clear that Al-Rabi lied to Muhammad about the treasure, and that b. Maslamas brother had died in the battle, two details (one very crucial) which were missing before, and you're still pushing. When it turned out that you hadn't read the whole narrative, and wrongly believed that Al-Rabi had killed Mahmud (perhaps misled by a certain Islamic website?), you resumed pushing without skipping a beat, even insisting that the very same language which had misled you be included in the article where it might mislead others. That I find truly difficult to understand. Perhaps I'm looking upon this too dimly, but at this moment I struggle to recall anything that was ever solved, any discussion that was ever over until you had your way. See also Talk:Banu Qurayza. I'm not by any means asking to quit representing your point of view, but I am sick of revisiting the exact same arguments every day. If you let up a little bit and look around, you might find other things which could use balancing or general improvement where others might actually agree with you. Weren't there other things you wanted to add to this article? We'll never get there at the rate we're going.Proabivouac 22:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 02:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert
Placing a lone, whiny criticism from a barely notable source (I have looked at the book, you should try it) gives the criticism undue weight, thus violating NPOV and BLP standards. Arrow740 20:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not obligated to answer questions about my choices of material to seek out and I'll remove them from my talk page. Arrow740 21:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)