User talk:Farooqmoazzam

Please do not gratuitously remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Strothra (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Strothra:I removed the controversial images of Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him). Wikipedia and it's editors/administrators must respect other religions. In Islam creating images of Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) is not allowed.

It would be better if wikipedia/administrators volunlatiry remove these images!

It's written in the edit section that the images have been added after concensus of both sides!!! which sides are you people talking about??? who has given such concensus? Regards

Moazzam Farooq

Again, stop removing the images from Muhammad. This issue has been discussed to death, multiple times and the wikipedia community has come to the consensus that they should stay. The right hand side of the discussion page for the article has links to archive pages dedicated entirely to the discussion of the images --AlexCatlin (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

ALEX are u really brain dead???? who is the wikipedia community to decide on such issues??? what is ur intention behind keeping these controversial images??? Moazzam


 * Please don't resort to personal attacks. See WP:PA.  Wikipedia is not censored.  If you have a reason why they should be removed, please post them to the discussion page.  However, please read ALL the previous discussion on this issue to make sure you don't bring up something that's already settled.  Frotz (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

AGAIN: can u tell me who has 'settled' this issue???who has the authority to do so? Moazzam
 * Wikipedia is a collaborative project, the editors themselves (ie: all of us) reach consensus on what is included in each article, with ultimate oversight provided by the arbitration committee. Read About for more details. If you want specific information about who has settled the issues then you can read about them on the articles respective discussion pages and their archives.--AlexCatlin (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have seen those discussion pages...a specific opinion was forced!!! u call that consenses!!! Frotz u've written "Please don't resort to personal attacks. See WP:PA." can u also show me where the WP policy allows attacking some religion or someone's religious faith...~Dec 10 23:58~Moazzam~


 * The official policy of Wikipedia is that all articles shall be written with a neutral point of view. See WP:NPOV.  Muhammad therefore receives the same respect as all other notable historical persons.  Nobody is attacking anyone, live or dead, by reverting your edits.  Frotz (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My Dear, I've no objection on the 'neutral point of view' policy of Wikipedia. I was just asking not to add such NON-NEUTRAL things that DONT ADD ANY INFORMATION to the atricle and that may be considered as deliberate attempt to offend the followers of any religion. Those images are infact mis-informative. Moazzam 11:Dec-07; 23:14Farooqmoazzam (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The images are both encyclopedic and neutral. Wikipedia is not censored, see WP:CENSOR.  Please note that Wikipedia comes with a clear Content disclaimer warning you that there might be material you find offensive.  For instance, a lot of people against pornography do not enjoy seeing exposed genitalia such as on the Vagina article. --Strothra (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

aham can u somehow understand the difference between necessary/informative images and unnecessary/non-informative images. Farooqmoazzam (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Pornography article already has pornographic images --AlexCatlin (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Farooqmoazzam (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This from the same guy who says images of Muhammad are offensive doesn't think that the porn on wiki is vivid enough. I apologize that wiki does not display more graphic images of the subjugation of women to suit your taste.--Strothra (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

u can twist it the way u want...my point was that despite the proclaimed 'neutral' policy some things are added on wiki that are offensive and dont have any informational content. i have same stand for porn as well, u just need to read between the linesFarooqmoazzam (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wa'alimum assalam and thanks Seyeed for the invitation Farooqmoazzam (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome
In addition I invite you to participate in WikiProject Islam-- Seyyed(t-c) 03:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Islamic Banking & Finance
A tag has been placed on Islamic Banking & Finance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Travis talk  23:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)