User talk:DinajGao

WP:BLP
Do not add unsourced material in violation of WP:BLP it will be deleted and if you continue to add it, you will be blocked. Find reliable sources, then add the material. Also, do not remove sourced material from articles as you have done to List of American Muslims based on whether you think that they are Muslim enough. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good job on putting the references in. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears we disagree about images
I've been uploading and placing photographs (hundreds) in the Wikipedia. Some are truly magnificent. I can't understand why you believe a portrait photo of Michael Jackson looks better in a big white box without showing details. Please remember that people remember Jackson this way, and if you will agree not to revert my sizing of the photo, I promise to provide a much, much better image for the page. Can we agree on that?--leahtwosaints (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: MJ image
Sorry i dont understand what you're trying sa,y about the big white box? I only reverted you're edit because I thought image was to big and really looked of bad quality, because that image was actually cropped from the original image, and making it too large just ruins the image. DinajGao (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded and placed hundreds of photos in the Wikipedia, and have been editing for a few years. Here is my best explanation to help teach you about photos here. After reading my explanation, please see Elvis Presley and John Frusciante, both FA articles to see that the only time any photo has a size written there is when it is too small, thus requiring 220px to be added to allow our wiki markup to attempt to assist the photo to look larger. Thus, "147" was belatedly placed there by an inexperienced editor after the article was featured the first time. If the editor had experience, they would know that it should say px after the size, as in 147px (still too small!) and the size must be 220px in size, or else no sizing is necessary! The infobox is the "big white box" I was speaking about. It is intended to be filled by the photo. I merely corrected the tampering on the photo size. Did you see the Elvis Presley article? So please, no more reversions of the size. I would have attempted to find a more recent photo of Jackson, but after reconsidering, it was agreed upon during the FA examination. Thus, if you suggest it in the talk page, and others agree, only then will I change my mind and replace the current photo. Do not begin an edit war on this article, please.


 * I am sorry that you feel the photo is poor, but compared to his fans, the curious, and the uninformed who flock to the Wikipedia many on the web, it is clear, and comforting to many who are reading for solace. --leahtwosaints (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that you readded the names of the country
I noticed that you readded the country names into the infobox of Michael Jackson. I am a bit confused as to why, since you left no explanation in the edit summary. Could you please clarify so that I'm not confused. Thank You.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

MJchange
Hi. I have seen that you want to delete, because you said its a blatant copyright.

In fact, I've made it by myself using Microsoft Paint.

--AimalCool (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. I see, but someone told me if you at least made it yourself (the file), its not a blatant copyright, but it looks like you said it is.

--AimalCool (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:African American ethnicity
Please don't edit-war over the image in the template. Use the template's Talk page to reach a consensus. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz 17:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
Please stop adding references to Jackson's alleged conversion to Islam. Overwhelming consensus, here and here is that such information not be included unless there is explicit confirmation by the Jackson family or their legal representatives on the exact nature of Jackson's spiritual beliefs. Jackson's reclusive nature, combined with high volume of tabloid journalism over the course of his lifespan make his entire biography restricted to using exceptional sources. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  14:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree, its biased not really following the neutral point of view. Dimario (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Category:Converts to Islam: Do not list a person as having converted from a particular religion (example: Islam) unless there are references in their article to their former religious affiliation with citation backing it up. There are no sources which have any level of certainty of his religious beliefs. As noted on the talk page discussions, all major publications which commented on the alleged conversion gave almost exact quotes from the Sun, or specified in their articles that the Sun was their only source of information. Also BLP: Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. BLP: Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. If Jackson chose not to discuss his religious beliefs, then it is considered a matter of privacy, and it is not wikipedia's responsibility to present any uncertainty. Finally: BLP: In the case of deceased individuals, material must still comply with all Wikipedia policies and prompt removal of questionable material is proper. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  17:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright i understand what you are saying. But if these news reports were based on other celebrities or personalities it will generally be accepted, however the reason why this conversion story is not being taken seriously or accepted is mainly because of the media, if the news media broadcasted that he converted based on these news reports then it will generally be accepted by the public and no further confirmation would really be necessary, the media is really the confirmation, but however there was no news channel in the west which really covered this story (only in India). Another reason is probably seeing he was such a big star it would really be unbelievable for some, and the again if the media did broadcast this it can influence many, does the media want that? Dimario (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The media's primary motivation is to sell stories. Whether or not the public agrees or disagrees with their point of view or coverage is essentially irrelevant as long as they can get people to watch their news channels or buy their papers; they have to make a profit so they can stay in business and pay their employees. Highly respected news sources will try to practice Journalism ethics and standards but a number will also ignore these practices for the sake of sensationalism. The primary reason the conversion story isn't being taken seriously is simply because its Micheal Jackson. Rumors as a result of media speculation have followed him relentlessly since the late 1980s; this is one of hundreds that never received any legitimate confirmation. It would be the same result if he had reportedly converted to Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism or any other religion. The fact that it is a story about Michael Jackson, one of the worst subjects of tabloid journalism in the history of celebrity automatically makes any unconfirmed speculation about him a WP:REDFLAG. While Muslims may be fond of the idea such a prominent figure converted to their belief system, one must also be aware of the very real possibility the story could have been fabricated as a way to promote anti-Islamic bias by taking a public figure who was twice accused of child molestation, drug use, and other abnormal behaviors and tie him to (at worst) Islamic terrorism or (at best) Islamic Extremism, such as the Nation of Islam which has been accused of antisemitism. So while mainstream Islam may see Jackson as a innocent figure who has chosen to embrace Allah, a significant amount of individuals who view Jackson as nothing more than a pedophile and who hold bias against Muslims may see the story as "Wako Jacko joining the terroists". I've been watching the news coverage of Jackson's death for the past few days and I've seen Jermaine Jackson, a known devote Muslim, speak about his brother on two different interviews and he never once discussed religion, which leads me to believe the conversion story was either false, or even if it was true, Jermaine didn't feel it was important enough to discuss, even after his brother's death. This coupled with the fact Jackson's lawyer officially denied the rumor gives more clout to the idea it was simply a tabloid story. If at some point the Jacksons and their legal camp reveal he did convert, that information can be added with no problem. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  05:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

'Former JWs' category
There are specific rules Wikipedia has for determining members of Categories about people, and those criteria are in the links previously provided in the edit summary. Such categories are not for merely anyone to happens to have been a member (whether or not such membership is actually known). For inclusion in such categories, the individual's former status in the religion must be available in reliable sources and their status as a JW must relate to their encyclopedic notability. Such categories are not for just anyone who has been a member of a particular religion, and the method by which they left is not relevant.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem I have is the language, in particular 'a defining characteristic' that is i think is based on whether the person finds it defining for them or not and should be mentioned in the article not on the category. Dimario (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have modified the wording slightly in regard to your comment here. However, inclusion in Wikipedia categories about people must be based on the satisfaction of both criteria for inclusion. a) The individual must self-identify with the group named in the category in reliable sources and b) such identification must be relevant to their encyclopedic notability.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks better now thanks, just a question it does include people who have converted to other faiths, disassociated themselves or disfellowshipped, right? Dimario (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It could include any person who was a JW, but is not a JW (including people who might have since died after leaving the JWs), whether they were expelled, left, or converted, so long as the required two criteria apply. Note also that the criteria for categories about people (especially living people) are more specific than articles such as lists of people by religion, though those also need to be reliably sourced.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome
Visit this blog and get out of your hip hop rut. Cosprings (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

MJ
The sun, despite being a tabloid is a more reliable source than wikipedia. You are justified in your points.18:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)81.23.56.9 (talk)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Michael-Jackson.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Michael-Jackson.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm X
Hello. Can you explain why you keep removing Malcolm X from Category:Members of the Nation of Islam? He was one of the best-known members of the NoI. Despite your efforts, it isn't a category for "current" members of the NoI, it's for all members. — Malik Shabazz 17:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "that category should only be used for those who are current members or those who were part of it till death"
 * Why? — Malik Shabazz 18:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Religion in the UK
Hi. I've made a comment about your recent edit to the United Kingdom article here. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Gigi Gryce, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''you haven't discussed your massive category swapping on the category pages or the article pages, of tens of articles. Please discuss before any future changes.'' Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If I have been hasty in labeling you a vandal, I apologize. Where can I read about the categories of religion and ethnicity not being allowed?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, after having read the straw poll for the category of "white muslims" which you directed me to, I continue to think you are changing categories without justification. Please discuss on the talk page of the Category:African American Muslims, before deleting. It would be respectful and much appreciated.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is to discuss the issue on the talk page and see what everyone else thinks. The section on "trivial intersection" gives as an example "Red haired kings", hardly a comparison with "African American Muslims", I think. Your explanation of it not being allowed to mix ethnicities and religions in categories needs to be backed up. Or I will have to report you to an administrator. I maintain all respect towards you, and am acting only for the sake of what is best for Wikipedia.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note that I declined the speedy, as the category does not meet any of the WP:CSD requirements. If you would like to nominate the category for deletion, please note concern at categories for discussion. — ξ xplicit  19:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

re File:Muslim Americans.png
Hi,

Thanks for making the illustrative collage for Islam in the United States. However, I couldn't help but notice that there isn't a single woman represented. Could you either redo the current image or make a new image to include representatives of the other half of the population?

I have created Category:American Muslim women to make it easier to identity potential images, from which I think File:Iman at the 2009 Tribeca Film Festival.jpg, File:EllenBurstyn07TIFF.jpg, File:ShohrehAghdashloo08TIFF.jpg, and File:Academy Awards afterparty CUN Noureen DeWulf.jpg are particularly striking. Other possible images are File:Marabrockakil.png, File:Anousheh Ansari.jpg, File:Pirani Ameena Begum.jpg, File:AlbinaDigaeva.jpg, File:Queen Noor of Jordan cropped.jpg and File:Zainab Salbi.jpg.

Thanks. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help.

BanyanTree 04:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm X
"Sunni Muslim" isn't a religion, "Sunni Islam" is. Please stop repeatedly changing the religion of Malcolm X. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

List of converts to Islam
The template is not representative of the actual list. There are many other 'negative' notable converts that you've chosen to ignore in the image and the picture list. This paints the article in a false positive light by highlighting the 'positive' converts only. 2) You dont need a template if you're only using it on one page. Similarly with Islam in the United States, if the template is listing notable Muslims, they must also include 'negative' people as there are quite a few and it would be misleading to only represent the good ones.

I see you tried to do the same with the intro but it was fixed by someone else later.

WHOA. Whats this? I see it was restored again by another user.

I now need your reply to the picture issue as you have obviously done a POV violation.

About the religion chart you made here. You made it yourself a few months ago. Any reason why its not accurate? Looks like a nice chart to me.

I had a request, could you also make a similiar collage for List of former Muslims? If you cant its ok, I can make it. Let me know. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 12:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Malcolm X, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please view my reason on the edit page of Malcom X. Dimario (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Typo in Picture
Hi there. According to Singaporean Chinese religion, the proportion of Buddhists andong Singaporean Chinese is 53.6%, and not 34.8% as stated in the chart. Also 16.6% instead of 16.5% of Singaporean Chinese are Christians, refering to the same article. Could you please change these figures? Thanks! User:KpufferfishUser talk:Kpufferfish•Special:Contributions/Kpufferfish 13:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Jim Fitzpatrick MP.jpg Image reverted!
DinajGao, could use please explain how or why you believe the cropped image is an improvement? If it had been, the photographer who supplied the original image would have cropped it himself. I strongly disagree with you and have reverted. JRPG (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

ice
you created a muslim american picture which includes ice cube in a host of names. I heard he has since referring to churches in his "go to church" single indicating he might be christian, and other verses indicating he could be deist. Just saying.

Template:Muslim American has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Converts to Islam
Template:Converts to Islam has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Converts to Sufism has been nominated for discussion
Category:Converts to Sufism, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:AzharUsman cropped.jpg


The file File:AzharUsman cropped.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

"Sylhet region" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sylhet_region&redirect=no Sylhet region] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 18:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)