User talk:Anonymous editor/Archive 11

I have good intentions
Anonymous editor, we may disagree on the arabic-english names, but I just wanted to let you know that I have good intentions in all these. --Aminz 23:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I know. Thanks. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet when I advocated the same changes, you weren't so sure.Timothy Usher 21:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We all here have good intentions but sometimes just don't agree with each other. Muslims have respect for the word "Allah" but on the other hand, many Non-Muslims think Muslims are worshiping a different God. I am really angry at Martin Luther. This guy, I believe, had a significant share in Non-Muslim's misunderstanding of Islam. Timothy thinks we should keep the word "Allah" in Qur'anic quotes but use "God" in the text itself. It seems to me to be a good idea. What do you think Anonymous editor? Again, I know that the word "Allah" by itself is important for Muslims.
 * Let me provide another example: It is about the words "Messiah", "christ" and "anointed". They all have the same meaning. According to Gary Miller:" The meaning of the Hebrew word "Messiah" is "God's anointed." Gary Miller claims that "Even Cyrus the Persian is called 'Messiah,' or 'the anointed,' in Isaiah Chapter 45. This verse has been translated in a misleading way...Here, when it refers to Cyrus, they translated the Hebrew word "Messiah" with "God's anointed." But in places where the Bible is talking about Jesus, when the term "Messiah" appears, instead of translating it as "anointed," they simply transliterate it so that it reads "Messiah." This word "Messiah" is in the Greek equivalent written as "Christ" and in fact often appears this way in the Greek Septuagint. Miller claims that there is a conspiracy to give us the impression that there is only one Messiah, one Christ and no other."
 * Salam --Aminz 09:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Again, I know that the word "Allah" by itself is important for Muslims." - it shouldn't be, as the phrase al-ilah, from which Allah derives, has been used for false gods as well. It is in truth as arbitrary as English God, a mere artifact of linguistic history, not any kind of personal name of God.


 * Miller is correct. Messiah is merely Hebrew for "annointed." Translations ought not be misused to to create the illusion of difference where there is none.Timothy Usher 09:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Timothy, please do a favor to me. It may seem strange to you but Many Muslim have veneration for some words (especially "Allah"). They think God is better to be called by the names "Allah" ; "Al-Rahman" (the mercyful) and so on. Please, please understand them. It is quite natural that they want to use these words. Had I not seen how some Non-Muslims have misunderstood Islam because of these words, I would not have liked changing the arabic words to english ones. --Aminz 09:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, there is a place where Arabic terms may be used liberally and without scrutiny. Indeed, one may (and does) even translate English terms such as "Jesus", "Christianity" and "United States" into Arabic. That place is here .Timothy Usher 10:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Which to link to?
What Wikisource page do you think I should link to? Should I link directly to the Surat text itself, or the general Qu'ran page? There's several texts available... ~MDD4696 20:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

you are doing a fine job. Keep it up

Allah
How is my edits to this article. I tried to keep the important points of your edit and Timothy's edit+ adding some points on my own. I also wrote a summary for "Islamic concept of God". How is that? thx. --Aminz 09:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it was pretty good. I had some problems with it and I fixed them. The introduction is different adds more besides Timothy's version and that's probably what I like better than his version. But I still think that it should be understood that there was a reason these articles are like this in the first place. He should stop thinking that his edits are the best ones that ever happened. Thanks. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Anonymous Editor. How was my summary for "Islamic concept of God"?

One thing: It was pointed out that "The One God" is not grammatically correct (though it is Islamically correct; The verse 2:133 precisely says "The One Allah" and I was reminded of this verse when I saw your edit). Maybe we should say "The One True God"? But I don't know if this phrase has been appeared in Qur'an or not. I would like to use a Qur'anic phrase. Any suggestion? --Aminz 05:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll look into it later. I hope it isn't undergoing arbitrary changes by Timothy because that'll probably result in more long useless arguments by him. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 06:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Other Articles?
What other articles besides Isa are issues? joturn e r 06:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Project Page under construction
Hello Anonymous editor,

I have created a project page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aminz/Project_Page

I believe even if we don’t arrive at consensus, it is very important to discuss this issue there. Any comments? Thanks --Aminz 10:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See also my comment on the project page. joturn e r 14:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Your arbitration needed
Salaam,

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. I have also put a similar request on my talk page.Bless sins 03:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it soon. Thanks.-- a.n.o.n.y.m t 12:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

More arbritration need
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.Bless sins 18:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is an ongoing dispute in the article Rules of war in Islam.Bless sins 18:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it did. It seems you are being followed and reverted. If you find this continues then report it. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:64.235.102.2 blocked
Per the message on the page, this is a message to inform you that I have blocked User:64.235.102.2 for a period of 3 hours for vandalism. Thanks for monitoring this IP address to keep active users from being blocked. &mdash; Scm83x hook 'em 16:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for telling me this. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus article / Unbelievable
Anonymous editor, It was unbelievable to see the unfactual and unneutral quality of the Muslim POV in such an important article like Jesus! Please have a look! I made lots of changes. I think Muslim editors need to pay more attention to Christian related pages. I remember I had the same impression with Salvation and sin articles. Muslim editors usually don't look at those articles so they do not represent Muslim POV accurately enough. Thanks to Timothy for directing me to the Jesus article. --Aminz 07:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have worked on that article a lot, but it changes so much everyday that edits rarely remain the same. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 05:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am sure you did but as you said many people edit it over and over everyday. Thanks --Aminz 09:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I know, I will look at it soon. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Isa
Perhaps you should move the article back to Isa and lock moves? Those that wish to move the page can file a RFM. — Aiden 21:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I can move it back and then you can lock it due to the excess amount of moves? — Aiden 21:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, please do not revert it back to "Isa". We compromised on "Jesus (prophet of Islam)". Thanks --Aminz 21:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

So, why don't we lock it on "Jesus (prophet of Islam)"? We compromised. --Aminz 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Palmiro was fine with "Jesus (prophet of Islam)". Most of those who prefer "Isa" are fine with "Jesus (prophet of Islam)". Only "Aiden" is not fine with "Isa". "Jesus (prophet of Islam)" is something in between and if the article wants to be locked on something, it is better to be locked on "Jesus (prophet of Islam)" on which 3 persons agree. Thanks --Aminz 21:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

AE, if you think it needs to be locked, please list it on WP:RFPP. I would prefer if everyone would just leave it alone until we reach a consensus, either on the talk page or at WP:RM. There's plenty of time to talk, sleep on it, and talk again. Tom Harrison Talk 21:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Anonymous Editor, maybe consensus comes out? We just need to find a title that does not imply Jesus is a prophet in Islam (like removing the word Prophet). I am sure we will arrive at consensus.

--Aminz 21:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what it does need to imply. It should say that because then we know that the importance is of himself as a figure and not that of him only being a perspective of the Christian figure. It's not simply Islamic views of Jesus, it's Jesus as a different figure. I think Timothy made it very clear why he wants to move it when he said "He is *not* "by himself" an important figure in Islam, and yes, the only reason he appears in the Qur'an is as a rebuttal of Christian heresy, and to establish Muhammad as the legitimate sucessor to Jesus, the central figure of the dominant religion of Muhammad's time.Timothy Usher 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)" -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Aminz, I am fine with Isa but do not like Jesus (prophet of Islam) for its POV connotations. Most Christians do not consider Jesus to be an Islamic prophet nor do Muslims call him Jesus. Anonym, I tried to move but it said page is in use. — Aiden 21:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Aiden, I think that Isa is the best, but prophet of Islam will be the only compromise. The reason is that the title makes it clear that he is a prophet in Islam and the Jesus article already has the christian view so people will never confuse it. And the intro will say that the name is actually Isa. I think the article was fine before this entire moving problem was started by Timothy, but that a title that makes it clear that he is important enough as a prophet and major figure in Islam is the closest to Isa. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, but the Jesus article also has the Muslim and Jewish views. Perhaps this other article could benefit from the same.Timothy Usher 21:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No that just makes even less sense why you want to move it. If people look at Jesus and see the link to Isa, they will know that they are the same figure according to Islam. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

New suggestion
What about "Jesus (prophet in Islam)", or "Jesus (prophet according to Islam)"? "Jesus (prophet according to Islam)" does not have any religous POV. Let's compromise --Aminz 21:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I'm also fine with that. Prophet "in" Islam is not pov because it clearly says prophet in the religion. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

THANKS! This will also consider Pecher's point that we are not talking about a different Jesus. --Aminz 22:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Either Isa, Jesus in Islam, or Islamic views of Jesus are ones I'm okay with. Whatever we decide, we need to end the dispute. — Aiden 21:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But Aiden, the Jesus in Islam, or Islamic views of Jesus are a problem because it's not only a persective of the Christian figure. Prophet in Islam shows that he is an important figure by himself too. Isa is the best for that reason but most other people agree with that as the compromise. Jesus in Islam or Islamic views are not the compromises and will be more confusing. Any further moves should go to RM or the article not be moved. If it does go to RM and no consensus is found then it will stay at Isa. This is why Jesus (prophet in Islam) is the best. And it doesn't have POV connotations now since it says that he's a prophet only in that religion. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, Timothy, Tom, Pecher, ... are you fine with "Jesus (prophet in Islam)", or "Jesus (prophet according to Islam)"? --Aminz 22:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Though I do agree with your views, Anonym, that if Isa is important enough to warrant his own article, there should be one. However, I don't view the Jesus article as a Christian one. It incorporates all view points. So, would you have a problem with it being a subarticle, just as we have Christian views of Jesus and Judaism's view of Jesus? I prefer either keeping it Isa or similairly naming the article Jesus in Islam or Islamic views of Jesus — Aiden 22:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The difference between that is that there is a difference between simply "Islamic views" and Isa as a prophet. As I said, I'm like Isa the best but am willing to accept the prophet in Islam as a compromise version. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "there is a difference between simply Islamic views" and Isa as a prophet" - yes, there is. The former is a description of article content, the latter Islamic POV.


 * We should move this discussion back to the article talk page.Timothy Usher 01:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Template
Copy/Pasting Mystic's message:

After some thought I decided to create this smiley template, as I thought most of the arguments in the talk pages are due to misinterpretaion of what is being said, hopefully these smileys will help us (at least me !!) communicate in a much more friendly manner. Hope you all will like it.

(Friendly smile) (Confident) (Mocking) (Hysterical) (Hurt) (Very Sorry) (Sleepy) (You are Nive) (I am not happy) (No Comments)
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce

« ₪ M ÿ š † í c ₪ » (T) 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

--Aminz 04:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Gilgit and Gilgit (disambiguation)
The User:Tobias Conradi moved the main Gilgit page to Gilgit, Pakistan without any discussion or without even realizing that this is the main article, and this is what the word Gilgit usually refers to. Please see Talk:Gilgit, Pakistan and restore the page Gilgit, Pakistan at Gilgit. The disambiguation links that are currently on Gilgit should first be moved to Gilgit (disambiguation). (Apparently User:Tobias Conradi has been doing the same thing with other articles as well, without any discussion, and has been in disputes with several people, see his talk page.) Waqas.usman 13:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What the hell
Greetings again! Quick question. Look at Peter Tatchell. Myself and User:Dbiv (David) were involved in a conflict, and so, he removed the info (Which was sourced) he didn't like, and then locked the page so I couldn't edit it. Surely that is not allowed? See the diff Here. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No he shouldn't have locked it. So he can get in trouble for that. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Islam
Hi, I have included a new image in the talk page of the Islam template, please make your comments about it to be included in the template, thanks « ₪ M ÿ š † í c ₪ » (T) 18:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Brother, your comments on the template_talk:Islam has been counted as a vote and its put under the neutral section. Many muslims agree that Shahada should be used as the logo of the template. In my opinion Islam template is the only template that doesn't contain a logo that is significantly related to the religion. The image looks like the Taj mahal. The image I have proposed relates to three different areas in Islam, .i.e


 * 1) Shahada - Proclamation of faith
 * 2) The masjid
 * 3) And finaly Islamic caligraphy

If you could only reconsider your vote in favour of this we could have three different aspects of Islam represented in one image. I earnestly request you to reconsider your comments in favor of the current image. please  « ₪ M ÿ š † í c ₪ »  (T) 16:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * They are all good pictures so I'm still neutral.

Your work on the Shahadah picture is very nice so even if the picture isn't used on the template, I hope you use it somewhere else. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks brother.. But the sad part is the editors who are not for it would still use your neutrality as a negative vote. I perfectly understand voting is evil in wikipedia, but as you can clearly see, I've been pushed for voting here.. So honestly if you think my image is good for the above reasons I have given, could you kindly move your vote to for it.. this way nobody will loose.. And you are not doing anything against your conscious as you dont mind either image.  « ₪ M ÿ š † í c ₪ »  (T) 18:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Help needed for Pakistan Occupied Kashmir page
Hello. I wanted to get some opinions on removing this page as it seems to serve as a propaganda page rather than contributing anything of value. The Indian Occupied Kashmir page was recently deleted (thankfully) and this page should be too as wikipedia shouldn't be used as a platform for nationalism in my opinion. Anyway, your input would be appreciated. Cheers. Tombseye 16:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks for telling me, but it's changed to "administered" now, so I think that could be neutral. Using "administered" is best name for both countries. Thanks. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Greetings. I wanted to suggest that the article on Terrorism in Kashmir be renamed to Indo-Pakistan conflict in Kashmir or Kashmir conflict or something and simply discuss both terrorism/insurgency and state repression. Also, it could be re-written for more neutrality and monitored to stay that way. Just a suggestion. Ciao. Tombseye 22:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Joturner
Anonymous editor, you were wrong in blocking Timothy

Anonymous editor, A big chunk of the discussions on the Joturner's RfA is rooted in your wrong decision of blocking Timothy. --Aminz 22:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I blocked Timothy? No I never blocked him, maybe you are thinking of someone else. And I see no discussion about that on the rfa. I see some people's own personal pov over what types of people can be made administrators and others who were contacted simply to oppose. It's a very horrible mess and I think that Joturner did not want to put up with it anymore . But it's silly to think that poor Timothy's block ever had anything to do at all with Joturner. But I'm sure he'll try now to use it as a reason even if it's obvious that he would have opposed anyways. Joturner could have passed if he had waited, but I see why he would withdraw. I also hope that you stay and don't leave wikipedia because of editors like Timothy. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, don't leave wikipedia because of editors like Timothy. But, you might consider taking back that award you gave him, or modifying what it says.Giovanni33 21:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Loung Ung
If you have the time, would you review this article for me please? Thank you. --RogerK 06:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: RfA Comments
I was unhappy to see it fail, but I agree with Kusma that it probably saved a lot of time against some pretty pointless arguments, many lies and lots of vote advertising by some opposing editors. What was really troubling was how it failed for almost the same reasons as before. It might still have passed if you continued but don't worry about it. But the rfa was a very bad case of incivility but you showed in your responses that you would make a good admin. I just wish that you would change your userpage back like the part about Identity. It's your own page and it's very interesting. Some editors would have opposed even if you didn't have a userpage. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't anticipate making major changes to my user page at this point. In its current state, I honestly don't see any promotion of Islam; I hardly mention that I'm a Muslim. And so, in the upcoming weeks, I most likely won't make too many changes. Perhaps I'll rephrase some of the more contentious axioms. However, I feel there is an extent to which I am willing to do this as, like you said, some editors will continue to oppose no matter what I do to my userpage. And as I personally don't see what the big deal is (now that I removed the admittedly overly Islamocentric information) I see no reason to sacrifice a healthy level of individuality just to gain adminship months from now. Perhaps I'll change my mind in the future, but as of right now, I see current quibbles about the userpage unsubstantiated. joturn e r 04:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I doubt that I could have actually passed. The RfA was getting ugly and many people were beginning to vote oppose (or change their votes to oppose) as a result of the ugly appearance of the RfA and the comments raised by the most opinionated objectors. Promotion after such a terribly ugly RfA seems hard for me to believe. joturn e r 04:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The Islamic Barnstar Award


For you continued efforts.--JuanMuslim 1m 07:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

HELP at Muhammad
The article is under attack by anti-Muslim editors. Pecher believes that it is a FACT that Aisha was six years old when she married Muhammad. He also seems to want to use the "legacy" section as an indictment of Islam. I need some backup. Where are all the Muslim editors?

Not that I always get along with the Muslim editors, as you know. Trying to stay neutral is turning my hair from grey to white. Zora 21:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for heads up Zora. Seeing some of the editors who have been editing I am not surprised to see it messed and biased. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 06:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your edits negligently mischaracterize the cited sources. These are known as Hadith, and are central to a major world religion called Islam. You might be interested in actually reading them. They don't say Aisha was nine upon marriage, they say she was nine when Muhammad had sex with her.Timothy Usher 06:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I moved that sentence from another part of the paragraph that has been recently messed and repeated. And also it would be better for you to provide specific cites than giving a link to several pages of hadith. Btw I did see that problem of marriage consummation afterwards and fixed it.-- a.n.o.n.y.m t 06:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Terrorist attacks on Hindus, Hindu Holy places and Hindu Temples
In Article Islamic extremist terrorism you have again selectively reverted attacks by Islamic Terroists on Hindu Holy places, Hindu temples and selective killing of Hindus in Indian state of Kashmir. By reverting this what do you want to proove? Are they not muslims? Are attacks like these not Terrorism? Is selective killing of Hindus by Terrorists not based on religion? How attacks like these are different from other examples of attack in that article? - Holy Ganga  talk  11:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. Please read the fourth paragraph


 * Islamic extremist violence is not synonymous with all terrorist activities committed by Muslims. Nationalist, separatist, and occasionally Marxist-Leninist organizations in the Muslim world often derive inspiration from secular ideologies. These are not well described as either Islamic extremist or Islamist.


 * So the case of Kashmiri people fighting to separate Indian controlled kashmir from India does not mean it's Islamic extremist terrorism just because they are mostly Muslim. The other attacks are not proven or sourced. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Please read this from the article: "The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign — over 95 percent of all the incidents — has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw."


 * World has declared major terrorist orginazations of Kashmir as Terrorist and not freedom fighters and their attacks as acts of Terrorism. Here, we are concerned with Terrorist attacks. How can you justify that Terrorist attacks on Hindu holy city, hindu temples and Hindus is not an act of Terrorism? How can selective killing of hindus is not an attack of terrorism? How can you distinguish between these attacks and other examples of attack here? Do you want to hide all terrorist attacks on Indians and Hindus under this so called "freedon fighters"? All three examples of attacks are proven. Instead of deleating them selectively, you should ask for citations. No example here is with citation but you selectively removed Terrorist attacks on Hindus, Hindu Holy city and Hindu temples. Regards - Holy Ganga  talk [[Image:India flag 300.png|30px]] 14:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Islamic Scholars Page
Anonymous_editor: On May 31, 2006, you removed the posts of some critics on that page as you said they were not scholars. We have begun discussion on the talkpage about it, and I would greatly appreciate your input on the matter. A plurality of views is important, and your input is appreciated and wanted. ZaydHammoudeh 03:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)