User talk:Anonymous editor/Archive 8

Tyler Carter
I nominated Tyler Carter for Afd and then realized it was a pretty-much complete copy of another article and a hoax. Isn't that grounds for speedy delete? —Wknight94 (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Really it's a hoax? Of course that is grounds but I need some reasons. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 00:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Trish Stratus and this article side-by-side. They're identical except this Tyler Carter's name is subbed in for Trish Stratus' name.  How could it not be a hoax?  Two people lived identical lives?  I figure the creator is reading all this and getting a pretty good laugh.  —Wknight94 (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. Done. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 00:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bill Graham move
I've now put a formal vote up on Talk:Bill Graham if you wouldn't mind going to "mark an X" - Jord 01:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 01:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Abe Levy
The reason I made the Abe Levy article is because in my article about my school, "Christian Heritage" I mention that the 8th grade school teacher, Suzanne Levy, is the mother of Abe Levy. So I made the article so people could know who he is and what he does. I'll try to get some more information about him, and I guess I'll put up an external link to an article he wrote.--WatchHawk 15:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well this is an encyclopedia, so the person has to be notable. If you can prove he is notable then that is fine. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 15:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

personal attacks
You forgot to sign your message. additionally I didn't attack anyone, I just showed him the kind of argumentation he used himself. -- Powerpete 15:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 15:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi
The same nonsense here. If you are interested, I think either protect it, or take part in ongoing discussion. F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 15:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Another edit war?? -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 15:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what to do, I enter a discussion, I will be faced with the good old "deceiving muslims", "conspiracing muslims", "muslims R gonna enslave to world" kind of rants. I don't have that much time right now either. Maybe we should ask some other admin to interfere here too. It's the same old BS again & again, it's getting too boring. F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 15:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well you are the admin, maybe a message should be left on the Admin notice board. By experience, I know Gren wouldn't like to interfere in this kind of crap. F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 16:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Was that really an edit war? It looked like 99% of the edits were being made by Pecher and Mike18xx, who appear to have pretty similar views.
 * Same old bullshit is right. In some areas Wikipedia seems to just amount to a soapbox for bigots. Palmiro | Talk 15:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already asked an admin whose dealt with this before to check it out. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 16:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, its sad , but thats the way it is . Its important to notice that pecher calls all talmudic verses on the net as Anti-semite on Talk:Infidel . The same person comes to Dhimmi & fills the article with material that are no where to found other that Islamophobic sites . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 16:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

88.105.24.134
88.105.24.134 has vandalized the cartoons controversy page almost ten times now. Wondering if you could get a ban on that IP for that? Utopianheaven 16:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 16:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert warring
I assume your are talking about Mike18xx. The Infidel page looks not that bad in relative terms. I didn't spot any obvious 3RR's, but I may have missed them. I see personnal attacks in the edit summaries, but he's hardly the only offender (that's still no excuse, for anyone).

Dhimmi looks worse. There may well be some 3RR violations in there, but it's tangled; I can't say for sure by who or where. There is incivility (at least) on the talk page. I think protecting was a good call (likewise Infidel).

I'll watch both pages for a while, but that's about all I can do for now. Feel free to seek help from other more experienced admins. Maybe some kind of informal mediation would be useful. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Tom Harrison Talk 16:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have warned him about personnal attacks. That's not actually racist is it? Isn't it an accusation of lying? Tom Harrison Talk 20:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Why?
I do not see a consensus that the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy link should be buried in the middle of the article. It belongs at the bottom with the rest of the links. If I missed a consensus, please point it out to me.--Jbull 18:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 18:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that we disagree.
 * And you called the restoration of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons link to "See Also" "vandalism." By the same token, your removal of the link is vandalism.--Jbull 19:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No I didn't. I had an edit conflict with Kmf164 who already reverted the vandalism by 209.43.8.150. That's why I said "rv vandalism, and article already linked see talk page". -- a.n.o.n.y.m   t 19:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, I apologize for calling your edit vandalism.--Jbull 19:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That is fine. Thanks. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 19:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The message you left me.
Concerning Abe Levy, I still don't know excatly what you mean by making it notable. I mean, this is an encyclopedia, we're here to write articles about events, people, groups, etc., and that's what I did. I put that he is the son of Suzanne Levy, and on my "Christian Heritage" article, I put that Mrs. Levy is his mother, so the main reason I wrote the Abe Levy article is so people could know who he is from the school article.--WatchHawk 16:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But are they famous in any way? -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 16:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see, well he's a well known writer for the AP, so I guess he is.--WatchHawk 16:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not personally attack Rajab
I pushed the view to him that we do have a consensus on keeping the image, and pointed out - quite correctly - that Wikipedia is not a Muslim theocracy. That is not a personal attack on him. EuroSong 22:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It is a defence. Where in my message did I speak badly of him? Nowhere. EuroSong [[Image:Flag of England.svg|30px]] 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not say that he was a member of a "bigoted Muslim theocracy". I just said that Wikipedia is not one. I don't know where he's from. he could be from Denmark for all I know. He could also be a nice and decent guy... I never said a word against that. I appreciate that you're trying to enhance the "calm" of what is undoubtedly a very heated debate, but please do not overreact, accusing me of "racism" and "personal attacks" when that is most certainly what I did not do. Thanks. EuroSong [[Image:Flag of England.svg|30px]] 22:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If you disagree and think it wasn't an insult that is your opinion but please be more polite when talking with other editors. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Links in headings
According to the Manual of Style for headings, it says to avoid using links within headings. Pepsidrinka 19:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I know. That article needs a big cleanup though. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 19:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My mistake
Apologies, I didn't even realize what I was reverting. I've seen the other image bounced around so much I just assumed that was it. I have no idea what the other pic was of. Sorry about that. Babajobu 22:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Vote on cartoon
At the time of my vote, I was not aware that the other option called for a link to the image at the top. But even still, I'm staying with my vote. I don't feel too strongly about my vote because, just like Hypocrite, I just want the never-ending discussion to end. If that means moving the article to the middle then so be it. I, personally, won't be looking at the picture either way. As of right now, I can't think of better picture for the top of the article. joturner 23:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That is fine. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 23:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey!
Hey, it's not every day I get marriage proposals. :) Thanks for taking care of it, though it was minor, really.  You should see some of the stuff I get.  User:Zoe|(talk) 00:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah it was strange. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 00:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Kafir
According to Jorge Stolfi:

''"Infidel" is only used when translating Muslims text and speeches, presumably always for the word "kafir", and it is understood by English readers to mean basically "non-Muslim". The word "infidel" is not used by Christians to refer to anyone, precisely because in English it means "non-Muslim", not "non-Christian". Christians use "pagan", "heathen", "non-Christian', "non-believer", "apostate", depending on the case.''

would you be able to comment on that. I have got no knowledge of it. F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 03:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes that is wrong. I commented on it. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 14:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you be able to help with the discussion on Infidel & Dhimmi pages . I have got tonns of stuff going on in my life right now & I dont think I will be able to continue the discussion . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 20:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'll watch the discussion. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, while looking for some sources , I found a number of sites , may be you should see what is relevent for the discussion . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 20:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll try to be back soon . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 20:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of higher quality Image
You are an administrator and you should know better than delete images without due process. You have absolutely no right to delete an image that claims fair use without due process. I must apologise for using this sock puppet, but I am an established user and I do not want my name tainted or being threatened by radical muslims. Either way I spent considerable time improving that image, Cropping it, enhancing contrast. One the improved image the text was still unreadable and it had been resized to less than one thousand pixels in height. I urge you to restore the deleted image for now and send it through due process if you want it removed. Thank you GraphicArtist 21:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually it is a copyrighted fair use image which is only allowed on Wikipedia with a low resolution. It was tagged for copyright violation and that is why I deleted it. That is the process for an image. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Who tagged it for deletion? I dont have another copy, and for now, you can just resize it to the same size as the current image. GraphicArtist 22:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It was tagged by KimvdLinde and he left the message Copyright violation, is not a low resolution version and that is true. We have to respect copyrighted images. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Just for the record I tagged the Microsoft logo as copyvio . It's resolution is 1280 pixels in width. Are you going to delete it? The Mohammad image was only 1000 pixels tall. Now please restore the work on which I spent several hours or I will take my grievance somewhere else! GraphicArtist 22:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm on freenode as user GraphicArtist2 if you want to talk to me. GraphicArtist 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that your hard work got lost but the image is fair use. Please see this for what type of licence the image has. -- a.n.o.n.y.m   t 22:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm very well aware of copyright law (I'm a law Student), thanks for the link. Whatever peter wrote there does not matter, the only authoritative text is Template:Newspapercover. As I said the text of the newspaper was DELIBERATELY left unreadable, the image was only 1000 pixels tall. I will try to acces the image on my home computer. Now yould you please work with me in resolving this? What resolution do you propose I scale the updated version of the image? GraphicArtist 22:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what resolution. The current image was limited to its size because of resolution restrictions which is why I think that that is its limit for size under this particular fair use licence. If you can get permission for your resolution from the newspaper then that can solve the problem easily. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I can make a pretty good argument that an image no taller than 1000 pixels can be considered fair use and web resolution since it can be shown on a Monitor screen at whole. A violation of the Fair Use doctrine would occour if the version of the images we had could be used for republishing. Thus if someone came to wikipedia, got the image, and used it for publishing. Here's what I propose: I'll upload the file AGAIN, copy this conversation over to the talk page, while you protect the updated image. Does that sound fair? GraphicArtist 22:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I thought you didn't have another copy? However I will answer your question. Go ahead and upload the image. I however can not protect it. Is there a reason that you feel the image is necessary? -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are wrong in your belief that permission would affect any image under fair use. Even if the publisher came out and said you are not allowed to use it, (as it's the case with AP images) we still may use them if fair use applies. I would STRONGLY suggest you no longer delte images unless you are sure of what you are doing. Read the previous entry and give me a response please. GraphicArtist 22:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm at school, I dont have another copy *right now* but I'm trying to obtain one. Does the grandparent proposition sound ok then? GraphicArtist 22:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The current image is protected. Another rationale is that makes it obvious an admin is aware of it. GraphicArtist 22:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. I have asked for a comment on your request. As soon as I get the response I will tell you. Bye. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I must go to class in five minutes. I place the image at Image:Image-Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.png. Talk it out, when you are done please protect the image and rename it to Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.png GraphicArtist 22:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

List of Newspaper cover images 1000+ pixels:
 * Image:Wilsonvillespokesmanlecarticle.jpg
 * Image:Boar01.jpg
 * Image:The_Tech.jpg
 * ... (work in progress...

Wikipedia Project
Hi, my name is Federico (alias Pain) and I am creating a section for nominating th best user page, I was wondering if you were interested in joining the project.

The project has just started, and we need help to spread the word and ameliorate it.

Votes_for_best_User_page

Best regards, Federico Pistono  ✆   ✍  00:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Ok, I was told before that reverting vandalism did not count for the 3RR KimvdLinde 00:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Looked at the Three_revert_rule page andit is stated that:
 * This rule does not apply to:
 * self-reverts
 * correction of simple vandalism
 * Do I mis something?

--KimvdLinde 00:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So, the page I mentioned above is incorrect? KimvdLinde 00:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, so, normally, correction of simple vandalism can be carried out as often as needed. And on this page for the image also because of the special nature. Good to know. KimvdLinde 00:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the copyright issue. It is a copyright violation regardless. The Danish newspaper allows a single personal copy for persons (and make explicite that it is not for companies or anything else). The e-mail says that the cartoonists needs to be approached, and I have not seen any evidence that that has happened. Wikipedia says it also, the question that remains is whether it is fair use (assuming it is at a US based server, as it propably does not apply to countries outside the USA):
 * Images and photographs, like written works, are subject to copyright. Someone owns them unless they have been explicitly placed in the public domain. Images on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf. In some cases, fair use guidelines may allow a photograph to be used. (Copyright)

So, as there is no copyright obtained (see above), the question is whether this constitutes fair use. The copyright disclaimer at the image page says:
 * The image is low resolution and of no larger and of no higher quality than is necessary for the illustration of an article, and the use of the image on Wikipedia is not expected to decrease the value of the copyright, eg, there is no risk this image can be taken and republished on another newspaper.

I loaded the image in some image software, and I could without much loss of quality enlarge the image by 100%. And based on my experiences (although limited), the quality of the images is such that reasonable (although smaller) copies can be made, in full color and at sufficient resolution. That violates the not-republishable clause and in that sense, I would say that it is not fair use of the cartoons. But what would a judge say? Than comes the whole larger context in paly, such as the extreme controversy it invoked, etc. And in that sense, the outcome is completly unpredictable. (And the final question, will this result in court case over copyright issues, not likely because there are so many copies in high quality that go over the internet at locations you can not tough them (Belarus for example), that these cartoons will probably remain there for a VERY long time.)

BTW, other images that have the same characteristics as this image (see the list at the image page), does not imply that other images automatically can be considered "fair use". That leaves three newspaper covers, and based on the wikipedia criteria, they might also violations of fair use.
 * The two edited versions are explicitly covered by AP ( link and link)
 * One manipulated is a private picture ( link)
 * Two sceenshots are from game/movie, and only a fraction of the work, not the whole cartoon, which makes it fair-use ( link and link)

I still think this image is a violation of copyright and fair use, but everything revolves around whether the image is good enough to make reproduce. I think it is good enough, but others diagree apparently.

--KimvdLinde 03:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Answer on Muslim talk page
I don't understand --- I didn't remove any answer. It's possible that we were editing at the same time and that there was an edit conflict. In that case, you may have THOUGHT that you saved your edit, but in fact the SAVE failed. That's happened to me. Please add your answer again. Zora 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks!
Okay, this is perhaps a bit overdue, but thank-you for your support in my recent RfA! I passed with a final vote count consensus of (82/1/0), which was a lot of support that I really appreciate. I'll try to live up to the expectations; and on that note, if there's ever something I do wrong (or don't do right), please spit in my general direction. Cheers! --P e ruvianLlama(spit) 05:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

10000th edit
When I reach my 10,000th edit I'll be sure to return the flavor, thank you so much for bestowing me with such a kind honor. I feel so grateful! I am so happy that someone has done such a nice thing for me!:



I want to give you the Tireless Contributor's Barnstar for your achievement and for being one of the best Wikipedians I know. ε γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  21:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Everything is fine by the way, I'll give you another one:

Obrigado, Gracias, Merci, Grazie, Arigato, Thanks! ε γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's raining barnstars! -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Gotta give you another one, you don't have to put it on your userpage (getting kind of crowded there!) but I am a big fan of your tireless and cool work. Ashibaka tock 03:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Ashibaka too. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 03:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon Shi'a editor
I reverted all his edits to Succession to Muhammad yesterday, and just now reverted all his edits to Abu Bakr. In each case the Shi'a view is given at length, and it is not necessary to pepper the rest of the article with caveats and provisos.

I am less disposed to be indulgent with agenda-driven Shi'a editors when they start questioning matters that are accepted by ALL academic authorities. Abu Bakr wasn't an important Muslim and one of Muhammad's trusted lieutenants? Huh? Zora 22:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Also see Tawhid for some cleanup. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Jamal Badawi
Hi. I'm curious why you removed the convicted terrorist part from the See Also of Jamal Badawi? Was he not convicted? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, good point. Sorry.  I'll try to add two and two next time...  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Image
Please don't forget to upload the image to Wikipedia from Commons, and protect the image, before putting it on the main page. &mdash; 0918BRIAN &bull; 2006-02-6 22:29


 * Thanks for doing it still. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Joke's RfA
Hi Anonym, thanks for voting and for your comments in my (successful) RfA. All the voters who voted neutral or oppose had the same criticism – lack of involvement in the Wikipedia namespace. This is nice, because it is a weakness that I can endeavor to fix. Although I don't think I have the disposition or diligence to be actively involved with, say, VfD, I've recently started to participate in the Featured Article discussions and will start participating in some policy discussions now that I am starting to grasp the way the project runs. –Joke 16:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

RFA
Hi, just wanted to thank you for voting on my RFA, which went through with a count of (58/0/1), far better than I'd expected. I intend to take things slowly and start using the extra abilities gradually, but if there's anything I can do just leave a message. Cheers, CTOAGN (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support on my request for adminship. It ultimately succeeded with votes of 52/1/2, so I am now an administrator. Should you have any questions, comments, complaints, or requests at any point in the future, please do not hesitate to let me know on my talk page or via e-mail. —bbatsell ¿?  04:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Adminship Vote
I want to sincerely thank you for voting on my adminship nomination. Whenever I mess up, please let me know. I want to learn from my mistakes so they don't become patterns. Superm401 - Talk 05:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments on People of the Book
Right now there is some discussion going on regarding the People of the Book article. The "original" article can be found in the 26 January version. User:Mike18xx made some significant changes, most notably reordering one section to first present the point of view that People of the Book are treated badly and then mentioning the positive references to the People only slightly. Then User:Farhansher and User:Yuber reverted back to the January 26 version while User:Mike18xx kept reverting back to his. Then, I stepped into the mix to revert to Yuber's version, but make a few overall changes. User:Mike18xx eventually left the situation, but he was replaced by User:Pecher who continued to re-assert Mike18xx's ordering of the section in question.

Although this may seem trivial, your comments on the amount of point-of-view present in the current version (by Pecher), my version, and the Yuber's version are requested. I'm particularly referring to the Treatment of People of the Book section.joturner 04:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad
Could you semi-protect the Muhammad article? The last 10 or 20 edits have all been vandalism. AucamanTalk 14:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage
You reposted a NPOV notice on Same-sex marriage on Feb 8. As per the notice, please give your reason for doing so on that article's talk page. Wuzzy 16:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually reverted it from being removed by an anonymous person. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your vfd
Hi there,

I nominated the article for deletion because I thought that it would not be a significant event after it was no longer headline news. As I reread the article, I realize that nominating it was a mistake on my part- please accept my apologies.

However, I wasn't aware of any rule making main page articles immune to deletion...in fact WP:NOT explicitly states that Wikipedia should not have articles for news stories not worthy of standing on their own.

I don't agree that it being on the main page should be considered a reason to prevent it from being deleted, but either way, nominating it was a mistake on my part. Sorry for that, -Frazzydee|&#9997; 00:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

10 000
Hey thanks! And congrats to you too! — FireFox  •  T  • 21:42, 10 February 2006

Babyfacered
Please block this vandal. He's vandalizing various Malaysian abuse scandals. KI 21:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Only if he does it again. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. KI 02:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

featured article
i noticed you semi protected the featured article, thanks for the postive motion however in my experince with this vandal his/her accounts where problably created a week ago to skirt semi protection :(Benon 22:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to keep the sprotect on for a while, within a min of removing the tag we had 4 penis vandals picked up. My mouse can't hit the revert button fast enough :) Tawker 23:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Qiyamah
I reverted back to my version for three reasons.


 * 1. Qiyamah is not a future event. It is a 50,000 year period and many have claimed it began a long time ago. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated, though I need to find the diffs before I add this to the article, that he believes Imam Mahdi is about to return and that the end of the world is coming.


 * 2. The anonymous user who first reverted me is a persistent vandal. A range block on the IP would be nice.


 * 3. Both of the above points are actually moot because all Wikipedia articles are written in the present tense, unless specifically referencing past or future events. KI 02:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * From Qiyamah: "The Qu'ran mentions the duration of the day of judgement as 50,000 years (Qur'an 70.4) and that some signs of its forthcoming have already begun (Qur'an 42.17, 47.18, 70.6-7). People beseech the prophets to intercede on their behalf, first Abraham, then Moses, then Adam, and finally Noah, all of whom decline to do so and instead point to the prophet Muhammad, who intercedes on behalf of the world (Qur'an 74.48; Sahih Bukhari, book 55 "accounts of the prophets", number 555, 569)."

The point is not that it has already happened, it's that it's happening. Remember that the chronology of Qiyamah is anybody's guess. KI 17:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what are you saying... do you mean the coming of Imam Mahdi? Or are you distinguishing between al Qiyamah and Yaum al Qiyamah? Please clarify. I am relying on the text already present in the article, though I once again draw atention to the point that whether or not Qiyamah is a future event, what takes place within Qiyamah is supposed to be in the present tense. KI 17:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not a Muslim and far from an expert on the Qur'an, but by Maulana Muhammad Ali's interpretation of this ayat, I thought the the entire 'day' is 50,000 years long: "The angels and the Spirit are spoken of here as ascending to God in a day of fifty thousand years. Al-Ruh or the Spirit very often stands for Divine revelation or Gabriel, who brings the revelation to the Prophet. But here it seems to be a collective name for the spirits of the faithful, because it is through the Divine revelation that a new spirit is awakened in the faithful; see 78:38a. The angels are mentioned along with the faithful because it is through an angel that spiritual life is breathed into man, and he starts life as a spiritual wayfarer. A day of the spiritual advancement of man is spoken of as being equal to fifty thousand years to show immense vastness of that advancement. Or, the day of fifty thousand years may be the day of final triumph of Truth in the world, from the time when revelation was first granted to man." KI 18:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could add the last part of this interpretation to the article? KI 18:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree... it is confusing... However, I dont believe changing the tense will do much to alleviate the problem. It needs a general cleanup. KI 18:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I will work on it later. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 23:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Best User Page Project
Let us try an experiment. Until further notice, the voting system will be open, using the method described in the Guidelines. This will make us understand how reliable the current system is and whether the project has a real possibility to expand into hundrends of users or not.

All users are encounaged to display the BestUserPage banner on their User Page.

All members all encouraged to display the BUP banner in their User Page, and also notify that the project has started.

We will refer to the votes for this first session as "March 2006" in the archive.

Federico Pistono  ✆   ✍  19:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Numerical structure
Hi Anonymous editor,

My main reason for adding to the Quran article was to mention that:

"From a mathematical point of view, Rashad’s argument may be true but is incomplete. Critics usually point out that it may be possible to find such structure in any random book. Thus to strengthen the argument one must first define a rigorous mathematical definition of numerical structure and then show that based on that particular criterion, Quran’s score is much more than any random book’s score."

I think this is what many Muslims are unaware. I just wanted to let Muslims know that this is an open research problem for them. It is a really hard problem and can be a PhD thesis for a computer scientist. Is there any place I can add this point?


 * Good Idea! Thanks. I'll do it soon.

Annoying vandal
Please block 69.235.248.216. He's been warned multiple times, but he continues. KI 23:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia talk page
Hello. Since "talk pages are not for general chatter ... discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article," and Saudi Arabia talk page is flooded by comments that serve no purpose (and some of what can be considered trolling), should the page be cleaned up? The way I see it, the longer these comments stay in the talk page, the more similar entries will be added.

Should "slow reverts" be used in this case? - Eagleamn 00:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Esperanzial note...
Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,

--Cel es tianpower háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)


 * Thanks. a.n.o.n.y.m   t 21:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Beat me again to the userpage vandalism. Great job :) Tawker 05:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 05:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad, hanif
I hope that the work I've just started, in setting up a Pre-Islamic Arabia article and revising the Hanif article, then linking them in the Muhammad article, meets some of your concerns re making sure that readers are aware of this material. Zora 22:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes good work. I will work on them later. -- a.n.o.n.y.m   t 22:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Any Feedback?
Anonymous editor, I have been editing the Criticism of Islam article for the last two weeks, but nobody is giving me any feedback. No revert! Nothing. People used to revert my edits in 5 minutes :), but don't know what has been happened. Could possible please have a very quick look to the article. Just a hint will be enough for me. Thanks.--Aminz 10:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it is going well. I will give some better feedback later and maybe revert some ;). Good work working on it so much. -- a.n.o.n.y.m   t 20:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the feedback. I will try to shorten the article as much as possible. By the way, I think the article on "Quran" lacks Semantical Analysis. Toshihiko Izutsu has a nice book on this topic: "God and Man in the Quran". It shows how creative Quran is in the sense of giving new meanings to the words used by Arabs before Muhammad. Unfortunately I am not knowledgeable enough to be able to write a summary of the work of Izutsu. Again, Thanks for the feedback. --Aminz 02:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for taking the time to vote in my RfA, which passed with a final vote of 54/2/1 despite my obvious inadequacy for the job. I'll do my level best to use the mop and bucket — or, as I said in my RfA, plunger — responsibly. Of course, in the best tradition of politicans everywhere, I've already broken a campaign promise (I blocked a vandal last night despite having said "I don't anticipate using the blocking tool very often"). Nevertheless, I'll try not to let the unbridled power corrupt me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

admin
Thanks for the support and kind words at RFA, Anon, and thanks for the message at my talk page. Still figuring all this out, but I've already gotten started; please let me know if you have any suggestions! Chick Bowen 21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome chick. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There we go--I meant to give you my logs for your perusal--haven't done much yet. Chick Bowen 21:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Very good start still. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello Anonymous editor, thank you for you support in my RfA. I was promoted with a final count of 48/1/0! If you see me making any mistakes, let me know ASAP. -- WB 02:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi a.n.o.n.y.m., thanks for your support in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-16 11:20Z 

Hi. On behalf of my right eye, I'd like to thank you for giving me your support on my recent RfA. It ended with a final tally of (73/2/2) and therefore I have been installed as an administrator now, and I'm ready to serve Wikipedians all over the world with my newly acquired mop and bucket. If you have any questions, do not hestitate to forward them to my talkpage. Once again, thanks for your support.  Soothing R  20:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of my request for adminship. I'm delighted that the RfA ultimately succeeded with a final consensus of 52/1/0, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any comments regarding my editing, or I can help you at any point in the future, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Again, thank you! └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting me in my successful RFA. The admin tools will definitely be handy for dealing with vandalism more swiftly. Please drop a note on my talk page, should you have questions about any of my actions. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 01:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

--Matth e w UND (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting on my RfA, it passed with a final tally of 68/0/0 so I'm now an administrator. If there's anything I can do to help, you feel I've done something wrong, or there's just something you want to tell, don't hesitate to use my talk page. Thanks. - Bobet 10:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR block
Hello. I was wondering about the grounds on which you blocked for reverting. It was not at all clear to me that he'd breached the three-revert rule; the five "reverts" originally reported covered two different groups of content, while the sixth revert seems a much different edit altogether. I'm also concerned, as you seem to be, about possible sock-puppetry in the report. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't interpret it that way, but that's me. Fair enough. I'm concerned however, that the reverting has continued even with the blocks. I wonder if a better solution might be protection of the article? -- Mackensen (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Good enough for me, thanks for taking the time. Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

hello
I only return the hello since its wajib. Answer: Yes. Dont ask, you know. --Striver 20:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer. I dont want any help. --Striver 20:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Either i was wrong, or not. In either case, i dont care any more. Im not going to point fingers. If you really are curious, invstigate. Please dont contact me again, not even to say good bye. --Striver 20:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll explain. Striver disappeared for a while, then returned and started editing a number of minor articles, or articles he had started and which had been tacitly "ceded" to him (as in, they're not needed, but an AfD would be too much trouble). He stayed away from articles with lots of editors. Within the last few days, he started editing the high-profile Islam-related articles again. In my opinion, his edits are usually detrimental rather than helpful, and I deleted a lot of them. I was very insistent on removing his edits to Muawiyah I; he was intent on adding every accusation that Shi'a Muslims had ever made against Muawiyah. I felt that -- and still do feel that -- it is unencyclopedic to use WP articles to pursue a sectarian agenda against certain historic figures, and unfair to give the Shi'a view so much more prominence than the Sunni view. He blew up and cursed me out on several articles and announced that he was leaving.


 * I feel upset by all of this, and wish that I hadn't been as curt as I was in some of my edit summaries and talk page comments. However, I can't regret my edits. As you know, I feel strongly that we should be FAIR to the Shi'a, and that means giving their POV even though it's a minority POV. However, I don't think that means giving them special treatment, or giving them carte blanche to add as much material as they please. Or perhaps I shouldn't say "they", as it's not at all clear that the Shi'a editors here represent all Shi'a. I would rather believe that Reza Aslan represents the best of the Shi'a POV. Zora 23:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I hope he'll come back and you both can work on those articles. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 23:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As-Salaam 3alaykum "Frazzled"

اَيُّوْبْ وَزيْرْ 04:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello. Who are you? -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 18:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Islam in Denmark
On the Islam in Denmark article, I found three sources indicating that the Qur'an is required reading in upper-secondary schools in Denmark. Two of them were by authors who have a history of writing against Islam, while the other was a newspaper article. The newspaper article seems not to be working at the moment, but I provided a cached version on the talk page. Does the authors background invalidate it from being reliable, especially if it was published in atleast 2 journals. Perhaps you can weigh in. Furthermore, can non-English sources be used to verify something? Pepsidrinka 22:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 *  In wikipedia if english sources aren't foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, but subject to the same criteria as English-language sources.
 * Not sure what you mean by this sentence. Pepsidrinka 22:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thus far, I have found 3 citations, 1 by Robert Spencer, a second one by someone who I infer to have a bad reputation when it comes to being balanced on Islam, and a newspaper article. The newspaper site is done, so all I have is a cache. The thing is, most of the sources are in Danish, or atleast non-English. One thing I don't understand is how saying something like this furthers Spencer's agenda. Nevertheless, I can't seem to find anything sufficient (besides my now defunct news source). I guess I'll keep looking. Pepsidrinka 22:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up
I don't wanna start another revert war with you but that doesn't mean that I don't wanna try improving the article and remove that factual accuracy tag. By reverting my edit you added stuff to the article which is not backed by sources. C'mon you are an admin now.. What about the Wiki policy of citing sources. There is so much of crap in the article which is not backed by sources. And for once, instead of reverting my edits and adding POV tags, make some other valuable contributions to the article --Deepak|वार्ता 15:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And if you feel that my edit gives only one sided view.. then go ahead and the other side's view. Why can't you ever make an effort to improve the article and keep arguing all the time.. so unproductive. I am making a sincere effort to improve the article and all you do is revert my edits claiming them to be POV! Fine you feel that the changes done to the article are biased so go ahead and make changes to them not just balantly revert my edit. Thats just so insulting --Deepak|वार्ता 15:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC).


 * Hello Deepak, my point isn't to edit war. What you did by changing that info is making it so most of the paragraphs have India says this and India says that without the other side. I agree the article is in pathetic shape but almost all the edit you did were one sided and at the end the only other POV that was given you said "India however rebuffs these allegations as an attempt to create a false anti-India propaganda." That does not seem biased to you? Having four paragraphs on how India accuses these groups and Pakistan and then the numbers of "terrorist camps", but only one sentence on India's responsibility and then claiming that sentence as unikely. We are not here to cover up anything, so the best thing for you to do is to make the information shorter and not repeated. Try doing small edits to each section. Also sources is not the problem here, sources can be found but it should be clearly said whose sources. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also what is the concern with the cleansing part? I think it gives both sides. I think we should make the article shorter and that could fix some of the problems. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * AE, fact will remain a fact. You very well know whats going on in Kashmir but you are trying to hide the truth. Those who play foul will face doom one day or the other. History proves it. The Nazis, the fascists, taliban, Saddam regime all did face doom. My family has suffered a lot in the past. First they had to leave Jammu due to anti-Hindu violence and then Kuwait due to the Gulf war. Well, Saddam did meet his doom and I'm sure those responsible for the violence in Kashmir will meet their doom too. Anyways. I've made up my mind to leave Wikipedia. So this is probably my last edit to Wikipedia. Thanks and happy reverting --Deepak 03:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course I can say the same thing Deepak. That you are trying to hide it. I didn't say that the separatist militants are innocent, but it's very hypocritical to call the Indian forces innocent too. over 100 000 people have been killed, not only hindus and Indian military human rights violations are recorded. I suggest you look at the numbers, clearly Muslim Kashmiris, Buddhists and others have suffered too. In fact more Muslims have been killed than hindus and many have also been driven from their homes. I know Muslim kashmiris who left Kashmir because of the Indian military here in Canada, so the doom will probably come on the military too. However I am not taking sides on the article at all as you saw with my edits ; I am just trying to say that even if it is hard that we should at least mention the violations by the military. So I'm sad to see that you have decided to leave but I understand since many have already left. --&lt;font color="green">a.n.o.n.y.m  t 00:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

re:Deepak gupta
Hi - user:Deepak gupta has decided to leave Wikipedia. Considering his last work was to raise some objections with you, I hope you can post a message discouraging from leaving. He is apparently disillusioned with petty bickering across the place. I'm not implying anything regarding the issues you had with him, but a personal message would perhaps help. Rama&#39;s Arrow 00:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh I'm sorry - I just noticed yours were the first comments! Sorry! Rama&#39;s Arrow 00:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

geocities as a source?
Geocities is not an authoritative source. Please revert the addition until an authoritative source if found. Thank you, --Urthogie 16:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will find other sources instead. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 16:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please remove it in the mean time? Peace, --Urthogie 16:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I already found some and replaced the one. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 16:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Palestinehistory.com is not authoritative either. You need mainstream news sources or encyclopedia's to be verifiable.--Urthogie 16:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No you don't. TO be verifiable you can use many different sources. For example, I used a university source. In fact using a university source is probably more accurate than mainstream news, many of which are very biased. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 16:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A university source has .edu in it. Anyone with a .com can pretend to be anyone.--Urthogie 16:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Urthogie it is a well known organization. In fact the source from geocities that you didn't like is a paper by a Jewish university professor and this one that I added DOES have an .edu. :) -- a.n.o.n.y.m   t 16:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I will keep it and remove the others.--Urthogie 17:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good. However the history.com one can be used if ever a main article is created on the group because it is similar to using Israeli media on Palestinian articles. And I found sources on the other organizations that you deleted too. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Your new sources are not .edu or mainstream news sources. Please remove them.--Urthogie 17:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me where it says they have to be. The website says that all of the information was used by permission from the U.S Library of Congress Country Studies and the CIA World Factbook. I think that is acceptable.-- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If it actually is from the CIA world factbook, you could find it there-- anyone can claim a source, but only some are telling the truth. It needs to be verified before being used.--Urthogie 17:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It still does not mean it isn't an acceptable source since there is other data on the organizations too. You can search for it. It's just that this one has all the organizations on one page. The site is based on information from the Factbook, and it says so on the main page. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am removing it until you find sources from the Cia Factbook itself. If you're right, you'll eventually find the source.  Thanks, --Urthogie 18:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, please note that this link is not the fact book itself, it simply claims to be from it.  If you're right, and it is valid, then the factbook itself will have the same info.  Thanks,--Urthogie 18:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid reason to remove the source or the organization from the article. If you don't think it's notable then you should have done a search. The factbook itself does not publish same info every year either. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 18:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is a valid reason. We only use verifiable and authoritative sources.  This one isn't ether.  Also, please note that the burden is on you to find verifiable sources if you want to include content.  Thanks, --Urthogie 19:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The source is completely authoritive. It's a factbook if it says it is and it really isn't up to you to say that it isn't. It says that it consists of information from the Library of Congress and the CIA factbook and references them on all it's pages. So it really isn't up to us to argue against such a large website and say that no they probably didn't get that from the Library of Congress or the factbook. And here are organization links . I have found enough sources on them, so now please stop trying to find something wrong with each one of these links and just accept it. Thanks.-- a.n.o.n.y.m   t 19:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1.Having a large website that claims it is copied authoritatively is not enough to be an encyclopedic source. 2. Anyone can make an organization on the internet(see how many KKK websites there are, for example).--Urthogie 19:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what meets your criteria for an encyclopedic sources but I know that we use enough sources that are way worse than the ones I provided for articles. I think that you are forgetting that the entire point of finding the sources was to see if the group actually exists, not to actually reference anything. I have shown you enough sources that say that yes these organizations actually exist. Showing that these are real organization was the entire point of these references. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing with you that the group exists, thats obvious. We need an authoritative source to list them as terrorists, though, not any .com operation.--Urthogie
 * The group clearly exists for terrorism. All the sources that I provided are perfectly fine to be used for showing that. How many more can I give you that say the saming thing, that the group was created by Kahane and exist for terrorism ? There's a reason they were kept in the article until you removed them. What else would a group called "Terror Against Terror" exist for aside from terrorism? -- a.n.o.n.y.m   t 20:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they stand for terror, I just want proof they actually did it. Authoritative proof.--Urthogie 22:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are getting at. You know that the group exists and that they exist for terrorism, but you don't believe they have ever done terrorism. All the sources I have given you say that they are responsible for numerous beatings and bombings and several murders, beginning in 1975. Now I have given many sources for this including a factbook already which you haven't accepted. I believe that is good enough to assume that this is a fair addition to the list. There's a reason they were kept in the article until you removed them. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just worried that it may all result from an echo chamber-- one person says something false and claims its from CIA factbook, and another person quotes, and another and another, etc. Sorry that I'm giving you hassle, but I want it to be completely verifiable.--Urthogie 22:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Volkan Yurdakul
Hi, you reverted my deletion about Volkan Yurdakul's participation at the 2006 Winter Olympics. I had removed the info because I could find no evidence that he is taking part, neither at Torino 2006 nor at Turkish National Olympic Committee website. Please advise where did you get this information. In case my info is true, kindly revert your edit. Thanks. CeeGee 16:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Aisha
You reinserted large swathes of unverified text after I moved them to the talk page without providing a source. Note that this is a controversial question and much of this material was added by IPs or semi-creditable editors. Please feel free to insert all the evidence you want on either side of this issue as long as it is sourced. Note that I did not delete the text but simply moved it to the talk page until it could be verified. If you can verify it, please readd it with citations. If not, please do not readd it. Thanks, savidan(talk) (e@) 01:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Noticeboard
I think that's a great idea. Perhaps we can try to do something with the Portal:Islam page. joturner 03:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD
You nominated several of Striver's articles for deletion. I recommend keeping the ones that are a "List of" things because they are very useful, but keep the afd for all the ones that don't say list. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't want to change the AfD midway. What I'll probably do is compile the List of Muslims page similar to List of Jews and then request deletion for the articles that don't fit into that scheme well (which will probably end up being the ones without list of). By closing this request and making a new one so soon, many people are going to accuse me of fervor. By the way, I think a Wikipedia policy denouncing fervor (a lá Striver's edits around 5:00am UTC). There is being bold and then there's being too bold. How could I go about getting that proposed? joturner 21:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You can cross out ones that you have decided to remove from the nomination. The policy you are talking about is point policy. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I suppose I should have known that, considering I accused Striver of violating that. Also, many who have already voted who might have voted differently under difference circumstances probably will not change their votes. joturner 21:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

List of Muslims
Take a look at the discussion going on at Talk:List of Muslims regarding a new organization scheme. My proposal exists at List of Muslims/Proposed Organization A (with discussion at Talk:List of Muslims/Proposed Organization A). joturner 02:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A request
Hello, perhaps talking to you after a long time. Please forgive me for interjecting on the talk page of Terrorism in Kashmir, an issue in which I am least  inclined to comment further. I came there in response to a wiki-mail by a user: please see my comments on that page. I am aware that you are an experienced editor-administrator, and shall surely assist a wikipedian who wants to leave us, perhaps forever. I understand from his mail that he is studying for his bachelor’s degree in engineering and such discussion emotionally stresses him. Let us make wikipedia fun for the people instead of a source of stress. --Bhadani 16:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello. I don't know what that user told you and if it was accurate, but a sockpuppet account was clearly created by someone who had a with a bad objective. That account is maligning the process and being really disruptive, giving a really bad reputation to the user, who I did consider a friend. I have commented on that talk page and I have also wished the user who has left good luck. However the activities of the user who was created has done nothing but blame me for absolutely everything and is clearly not a new user. If he continues I request that you interject into that issue. I also hope that you can help us make the article better and neutral to calm down the uncivil behavior by this account. The article has started going in the right direction now hopefully. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes hello, I will surely try to resolve the matter provided I am able to do that - I appreciate your cool, calm and professional approach to the issue. Thanks. --Bhadani 14:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Still, accusing someone of having a sock without solid evidence is considered a little accusatory. Why don't you ask for the checkuser function to be carried out on the sock to confirm your suspicions? Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The user's entire edits were about blaming me for the article, calling the user who left "a great editor" and working on that article right after the user left. I think that is evidence enough that it is either that user or as I suspect, some other editor who is trying to create a problem. As I said before, I don't want to make this worse but I think that asking other editors over and over again interject on the matter will not help. Regards -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 18:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Medina, Saudi Arabia
Hi, On what account one can confine the word medina in the prophetic traditions related to Mahdi, just to Hijaz of his era or Saudia of our times. Does any hadith stress such a situation or any of the immediate scholars of the time following the companions' age?!?

Could any of the editors of this subject shed light.


 * I don't know. The thing that needs clarification is if the word applies to any city, or the city of Medina so say which one first. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Then why restricting to Saudi Arabia. A medina is just any city in Arabic. Is it wikipedians who decide conclusions. Shall we not put raw info and let the time unravel a prophecy. Where Mahdi shows such place would be medina. A hustling bustling city of his time. Be it LA, London, Medina, Mecca, or Riyadh.


 * Technically:
 * Prophet migrated to Yathrib. Till late of times it wasn't the Medina as one calls today. Nor prophets prophesize clear facts. No scholar of any stature may solve it, rather the prophecy unwinds itselfs. Take the Quranic notion of Biblical Ahmed which turns out to be Islamic Mohammed. Then so many others as such, they find, prophesizing Islam's Prophet.

Scholars could be wrong, nor would words nor unfolding mysteries. Why bound by Saudi Arabia?


 * Yes you can generalize it if that is what the hadith says. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

My attack
I am sorry for my accidental attack towards you on Idelguy's RfA. I was trying to make an evaluation of you rather than insult. I was fairly stressed yesterday as well (external factors not because of Wiki). Thanks for telling me that it was not acceptable. I think it us brought about because Idleguy has been a gret editior whenever I've seen him on Wikipedia and I was very confident his RfA would pass. My sincere apologies.  D a Gizza Chat  &#169; 19:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That is fine. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please Don't Block
This user left a nast note on JTKiefer's talk page. When I warned him about it he denied any wrongdoing and told me to "lighten up." Please inform him that such comments are inappropriate, to say the least. KI 04:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it isn't appropriate but he has many edits. Just tell me if he vandalizes again, then he won't have to be warned. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 05:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your comment on my user page. It makes me feel a little better knowing someone actually cares. M o e  ε  05:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I have you look at...
The edits of 82.194.62.22 and 65.92.130.151. Thanks in advance. Best, El_C 05:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate your well done assistance on thet Islamic view of forgiveness. Considering how important the concept is to many religions and philosophies the topic has had very little input, however, I am not suprised. I hope to help turn it into a good resource over time. I may pick your brain down the road. I am rather new to this, but am starting to catch the bug. I would welcom any suggestions. Thanks again. --speet 23:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes please ask if you need any help the next time. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 02:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I could use a bit of help with a dilemma I have. I have been researching forgiveness for about 5 years, hence my interest in working on that article. A confusing thread seems to keep cropping up due to the ambiguous concept of condoning. I am striving to keep a NPOV on this. This may seem like a trivial matter, but if you bear with me a minute I see it as a real problem for many people struggling with forgiveness. (For example see the discussion in the forgiveness article). In my view the concepts of forgiveness and condoning are separate and distinct. Dictionaries however often cite forgive as a synonym of condone. On the other hand, condone is rarely if ever cited as a synonym of forgive. The reason I believe is apparent from the history of the word condone, which had a legal meaning of forgiveness, especially in old “fault” divorce cases. The word now for most, in my experiance, means some half-hearted affirmative approval. That leaves some people struggling with forgiveness because they bump into the mistaken belief that they cannot forgive something because that means they have to condone or approve of the action.

Every recent article I have seen flatly agrees forgiveness is not condoning. But we have dictionaries that say condoning is forgiveness, because of arcane legal definitions. However I have no cite for my conclusion as to how this occurred. I don’t really want to muddle up the forgiveness page on this, so I thought the approach may be to do a page for the word condone. However, it has been flagged for the dictionary, and I must admit it does seem like such a definition unless I fully spell out the competing theories. Perhaps it should be a disambiguation page? But as I am relatively new to this I don’t have the proper “feel” for how to handle this. I think my theory is correct, and certainly as well founded as some of the information I have seen on Wikapedia

On another note, I see a unique potential opportunity for this page as bringing input from all walks of life together on a uniting value. Any thoughts on a more effective way of soliciting input from the various religious pages? Again thanks for your addition. --speet 17:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for any help you can give on condone. On the religious pages, it is amazing that what is a central concept is essentially ignored by all. So much for content, I guess it is more fun to argue about form. --speet 17:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

When you get a moment, see if this works for you: condone. Thanks for all your help. --speet 20:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey
Hey Anon.. Yes, I decided not to leave Wikipedia. However, I will remain inactive till May or so. All I hope is that everything between us is cool. Regarding the sockpuppet issue, I think I would have responded in a similar manner the way you did. There were many factors backing yr claim too: the user started making edits soon after I decided to leave and reverted Terrorism in Kashmir to my version. But at the same time, I would have taken up the issue to WP:RCU before making accusations. I think you shouldn't have accused me of creating a sockpuppet account without any concrete evidences. But I understand the way you responded because in the past many Wikipedians have used sockpuppet accounts to defame you. Anyways.. I wouldn't be bothering you anymore. When I return I will concentrate mostly on Science, Space Exploration and Engineering- related articles as there is much less arguing there (now please don't come running behind me there too :P). I wish you good luck in life --Deepak 01:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Welcome back and yes, it's cool. I guess I'm also glad that you know that there are some socks that had been used before. Although I didn't agree with your actions after the accusation about trying to get several different editors interjecting, I think we will both be fine as long as you don't start messing up those science articles :p. Good luck to you. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 02:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

People claiming...
Hi Anonymous Editor,

I need another suggestion yet. On 10th December 2005 you had needfully created the page People claiming to be the Mahdi moving the contents from the page Mahdi as it was then.

Probably, you were the one to add an introductory text at the place where the original section used to be, necessary as a summary for any curious visitor.

Another piece of text as a leadline is also found on the People claiming to be the Mahdi new page.

Acknowledge how would it be if the word 'mainstream' in that piece of text is replced by 'majority of'??

Once a mainstream nation of homosapiens deemed Abraham false, the next mainstream rendered Moses a rebel. Then comes other mainstreams crucifying yet another icon of a phrophet. While the current mainstream trend never finds prophethood in Islam's prophet.

Wont 'majority' fit? Mainstream hurts, wont some feel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azgs (talk • contribs)


 * Hi Azgs the problem is that those people who consider people aside from Imam Mahdi to be the Mahdi usually don't belong to the main Shi'a and Sunni sects, and belong to other sects. I don't understand what you mean by "While the current mainstream trend never finds prophethood in Islam's prophet."
 * But since the majority is the mainstream then maybe that word can be changed. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 15:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again! Thanks for lending an ear.
 * This may not be a good place for passing detailed arguments, opinions. Nor do we talk religion. Just the clarification & a hint.
 * Believers in Islam's prophet argue that it was prophecized by earlier streams, then the mainstreams, semetic religions. A person claims to the same, and a group departs from the mainstream. The majority holds he is false, even today. He neither belongs to the Jews nor the Christians, the same who wait for him.
 * The day he appears how are they going to know him. (Have the conditions in the prophecies shown?!!)
 * Hence the word 'majority' seems to show neutrality of groups quality-wise. 'Mainstream' induces one to be wrong.
 * Should we judge?? Already? Azgs 02:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediate
I've just posted a message on Bhadani's talk page. I've explained him your stance as to why you think he was canvassing for votes. I personally don't believe he was canvassing for votes, (reasons being manifold), but I believe that it was a case of bad timing. However, I may like to add that the tone of your replies has much to be desired of and people often misunderstand you. I've noticed this from many of your posts including your own RFAs. I suggest that before you post something, please read it aloud. This would help avoid a perceived accusatory or agressive tone and clear potential misunderstandings. A few smileys would go a long way in setting the tone of the topic. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment :). I wasn't trying to be accusatory and not agressive either (and I did read it), but I wanted to keep that post as short as possible and he most definitely overreacted. However since you are a bureaucrat and ultimately his geetings will influence the outcome, I want to hear your suggestions on how this can be made fair. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 18:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think Bhadani's reactions would heavily influence the outcome too much. I stepped in to mediate on the issue before it got too ugly. And since I've mentioned that I'll be replying on your talk pages, those interested might check them out to read what I've written before they cast their vote. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have removed the question part of your comment because frankly I have addressed it on the page already and as I see there is already discussion over it. I don't think he has improved. Might I also remind you that he has also brought the issue forth in the past after 4 months had passed. I haven't seen any improvement because he has been working on one article mainly. He has been here long enough to have known in the end of October to know how to talk to people and not act uncivil as he did. I don't think that he has improved in the last 4 months if he couldn't do it in the 12 months time when he was here and other evidence from users also says that he didn't. Thanks. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 19:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All said and done, one positive thing that has emerged from this discussion is that Bhadani has decided not to leave. :) =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I had almost left the community in great disgust! I am talking to you, as I did not desire to be disruptive. My dear friend, we are here for a noble cause – we should keep the trust of the donors to Wikipedia Foundation. Let us continue to work diligently as well as intelligently. Cheers! --Bhadani 10:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes good to see that you're back. I didn't think you'd leave anyways ;). -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 15:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Hello. I'm receiving personal attacks from Classic 971, is there anything I can do other than deleting his/her comments? - Eagleamn 20:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing, really. I have been asked by Nameme to translate the Arabic featured article of Iraq War/2003 Invasion of Iraq. I replied to him/her in the user talk page, and mentioned the fact that the Arabic doesn't cite sources and many claims are just unverified urban legends at best or plain false misleading information at worst (with examples). All of the sudden I receive warnings in the Arabic Wikipedia so I removed my account from there altogether. Now I receive them here in English Wikipedia. Apparently someone didn't like me showing their mistakes. In any case, in the talk page of these articles there are a few comments, but in my talk page I receive personal attacks (the second comment by Classic 971). Thanks. - Eagleamn 20:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope it is solved now. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jew-fro
Sockpuppets galore at Articles for deletion/Jew-fro but no way to prove it... please help. KI 20:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Vandalism
Hi Anonymous, my name is Jared and I'm having a little problem. Another user and I recently put up three users for a possible sockpuppetry claim (see here) because of overwhelming evidence that states so (and its taking a long time to get this over with; only one user has posted a comment). My problem is that User:Wintermetal keeps taking the sockpuppery template off of his home and discussion pages, stating in his edit summary that I should "ruin my own home page". He has done this every time I revert it back, and I warn him of a potential block every time, but he doesn't care (and I'm not an admin). Could you please help me....maybe block him or something...let him know he is not supposed to take the notice off of his page (which incidentally makes him more suspicious of sockpuppetry!) Thanks a lot! (P.S. I contacted another user about this, too, but she hasn't responded as of yet, and it is sort of important.) -- Jared  [T]/[+ ] 21:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping me. I would also like to know how long do you think the WP:CHECK will take? I think there's sufficient evidence, but no one is doing anything about it. Could you give me an estimate? Like a week? -- Jared  [T]/[+ ] 23:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Raymond Samuels IP vandals
Can you just give any IP's that do it a week block, thats what the policy was in the past, see the talk page for some more sources of this guys vandalism. Thanks! -- Tawker 01:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thanks. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 01:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Kafir
Salam - would you have time to take a look at the introduction of this article? I feel it is quiet uninformed as it stands now. There seem to be editors who are applying their own personal opinion of what it means, from what I can tell. In Arabic, kafir is simply one who willfully acts in a manner 'unappreciative of' or 'rejecting of' God and the teaching of his prophets, but even Arabic and Islamic sources describe controversy associated with defining this word. Thanks Ramallite (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the translation from Arabic is very important. And you are right about the article being in bad shape. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations for getting the Battle of Badr article featured! -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Alhamdullilah, I'd like to think I had help from above. :) Palm_Dogg 22:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. :) It's very good work. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Little late...
Thanks. Not sure I have ever been really impersonated like that before. Thanks again. -- LV (Dark Mark)  22:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was typing my name variations into Kate's Tool, and looking at the automatic name generator and couldn't figure out why my name was there twice. Took me a second to figure out what was going on. Thanks again. -- LV (Dark Mark)  22:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome LV. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for your support in my RfA. It passed, with a final tally of 62/0/1. I'm touched by all the kind comments it attracted, and hope I'll be of some use with my new tools. You know where I am if you need to shout at me. Flowerparty ? 15:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you help me?
I've been looking at other people's pages and I've been finding all about me object thing on their user page like Evrik. I want add stuff about me like I'm a democrat and I'm a member of the worldwide community of scouts. Can you teach me how to make pages like those? Oh yes, also, can you respond to me on my talk page, please? Thanks. Crad0010 23:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Chad
I saw you edited Mohammed Nour Abdelkerim. You may be interested in joining WikiProject Chad. KI 00:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I may join later. Thanks. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 04:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hey, how is it going? Thank you for supporting my Request for adminship! It passed with a final vote of 73/1/1, which means that I have been granted adminship! I look forward to using these tools to enhance and maintain this wonderful site. I will continue regular article/project contributions, but I will also allocate a sizable portion of my wikischedule toward administrative duties :) Thanks again, and if you have any questions/comments/tips, please let me know! &mdash; Deckiller 04:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC )

Thanks for supporting my RFA. I really appreciated the show of support and all the kind words from so many great Wikipedians. I hope I live up to them! -- Vary | Talk 17:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Nacon kantari  e |t||c|m 23:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent vote on my RFA. While the nomination failed, I was rather expecting it due to the big lapse between registration and recent edits. Anywho, if you have any suggestions as to how I could improve so as to hopefully succeed next time, please let me know! Thanks! &mdash;akghetto talk 07:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Move?
hey, To move islamic World to Muslim world, I need an Admin. Can you do it ?--Irishpunktom\talk 11:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey welcome back. :) Yes it's done. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 16:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sock-puppet
I have reported about the charge made by you on WP:CHU. I trust that the matter shall be suitably dealt with to your utmost satisfaction. --Bhadani 15:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? What charge? Who needs a username change? -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 15:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry pal, I was actually talking about Requests for CheckUser. Cheers! --Bhadani 16:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I think you are clearly doing it in bad faith especially when it happened a month ago and Deepak and I already settled this. Bhadani you are just disrupting wikipedia more. Once again, the sockpuppet doesn't have to be Deepak, but it could be someone Deepak knows even some editors who have used socks abusively before. As far as I can see you have no objective here but bad faith and disrupting Wikipedia more. Clearly all your talk about "for the better of wikipedia" does not apply to your actions. Cheers -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 16:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a community and not a private delibearations – we are here to keep the trsut of the donors of Wikimedia Foundation, and acordingly we have to keep the standard high, and refer the serious issues to the proper forum, which I have done as a wikipedian. Why are you taking this as a personal issue? I was just trying to help you out of a difficult position. BTW, I am not going to be de-motivated inspite harsh words used against me, now as also earlier. I  know that I owe a debt to those who donate to keep the wikipedia runing, and I believe that Jimbo Wales  loves volunteers like me who continue to work here to build the sum total of human knowledge, in spite of gravest personal attacks and threats. I also wish you a happy weekend. Now, as I have to continue building the encyclopedia, I shall not be able to clear all your doubts immediately. Cheers!!! --Bhadani 17:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please Bhadani don't kid yourself since you have shown what you really want now and made this personal. You have also shown that you will exaggerate anything even as old as this to use against a fellow editor when you can't settle a simple dispute on something completely unrelated. This is bad faith and surely you know that too? All you are doing is making this situation worse as I said it would. A sockcheck does not have to be conclusive and the evidence is still there so in either case, you won't be able to get a final conclusion on if it was right or wrong. I just hope for the better of Deepak that it does come in false. The standard should be made high and that means not having sockpuppets running around.


 * And no we are not being paid by the wikipedia foundation and we are not slaves here either. We are here to make this encyclopedia better voluntarily and that's it. Not to impress donors or whatever. I am a donor btw, and a volunteer too. But I don't understand how disrupting wikipedia a month after a dispute has already been solved is going to help anything or, as you say, make Jimbo love you. I think I should remind you that you were here only to interject in the issue, but you have made the issue far larger than even the editor who was accused who I already have a friendship with again. I wish you a happy weekend too and hope that you understand how hypocritical and disruptive your actions are when you come back. Cheers. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not get so perturbed - Small is Beautiful. I would advise that you should be careful in the use of "adjectives" against fellow-wikipedians: make life simple man! BTW, I am feeling tired and going to take a bath, a nice meal, and a sound sleep. In Canada, it may be beginning of a Saturday... and a nice weekend ahead. Goodnight and Goodday. --Bhadani 17:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Compicating everything and then telling me to make life simple. It really is night there :p. Have a good weekend. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 01:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Good morning BOSS [[image:tongue.png]]. You may be  taking a sound sleep right now. You talked of tags once - plz see here: B.G.K. Is wiki-life so simple? --Bhadani 07:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No one's sleeping SIR but I hope you can make more sense of this now. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 07:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am getting scared of you [[Image:Cry.png]], and now I will reply only when you come to my page - at least once in a while. --Bhadani 07:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am too tired to come over there, stay here and finish discussion with another employee or the donors may fire you. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 07:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Afd of The Shi'a Guild
Should the guild go? I am the only one finding it usefull? I am a burden to wikipedia?

give your opinion, only a vote wont do:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild

--Striver 12:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I could consider it if it was suggested in the maner you did, in a polite and civilized way, but i get hostile when i see the accusations they throw at me there.

To the topic: Dont you think the guilds servers the purpose of giving a overview of Shi'a specific articles? I fear that effect would be lost if it where merged to the Muslim guild. On the other hand, it would be refreshing to get rid of "Shi'a are not Muslims".... Maybe if we categorized it in a maner where Shi'a and Sunni specific articles where on different categories?

Basicly, i dont feel to warm about the idea right now, but im open to talking about it. However, right now in this second, i wont vote for that, i feel that would be giving in to the stalking and bad faith nominations, these guys are stalking me all the way to the Islamic topics, brandning Sahih Bukhari as a "questinable source" as a afd nomination arguement. They have no idea about anything related to Islam. I feel very defensive about anything they are haunting me in. I mean, look at this Betty Kelen and Muhammad: The Messenger of God (book), the guy didnt even bother to chek if the books and writer was notable, he just followed my user contribution and afd'd it for the sole reason that i created it. See Articles for deletion/The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of Science. That gets me pretty uppset. --Striver 17:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. I will see what I can do to help. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)