User talk:Matt57/Archive 1

Ali Sina page
Well Matt57 thanks for talking to me about the Ali Sina page. Well i was talking about the information there has been skewed to simply advertise Ali Sina more. Even some facts were removed by someone there and its rather sad to see someone supporting someone so blindly, so that is what I raised there. Hope you see that too. Though I have decided not to post an edit there again, coz I am quite sick of trying to fix something, when people are happy over wrong information, let them be I say. Kind regards, (UJMi 23:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC))


 * Matt the problem is not that Ali has been challenged or not, he has been and we all know how he debates. He has his own way and he wont come out in open debate. he goes thru emails and after that he posts them on his website in a skewed manner. And that is what I mentioned on the Criticism section too, in fact I was the one who made the Criticism section the first time, but sadly one after another all were remove to as you said rightly make it advertising space for him. I admit that after 9/11 there is this surge in anti-Islam and everything like that but I think at least an encyclopedia should be last place for such kind of reckless behavior. You can check the alteration history by me and you can see how even the website links quoted which proved that Ali uses debate to his benefit by changing the lines and its presentation was even removed. Anyway once again thank you for your contact, and I am sure you will at least agree on making Wikipedia a un-biased play ground of events and facts. Kind regards. (UJMi 23:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

Re: Stoning to Death in the Hadith

 * Do you ever see "Salat in the Hadith" ? Its always "Salat in Islam". No one asks for that to be renamed. I perfectly understand your motivations though - you dont want the word Stoning to be associated with Islam but thats what it is - Hadith are a part of Islam even if some people dont agree with them and you should accept that ... Plus, most people dont know what Hadith is so the correct title should be the original one: "Stoning to death in Islam".

I'm not quite sure how one can compare Islamic prayer with stoning, considering that the former is one of the five pillars of Islam while the latter isn't. Nevertheless, it's not about whether or not I want(ed) the word stoning to be associated with the religion, but considering that certain Islamic sects/divisions don't even take Hadiths into consideration (or some Hadiths are seen as more reliable than others), I found the title to be a little misleading. If I truly didn't want to connect stoning with (certain versions of) Islam, I would have removed the: "According to traditional interpretations of the Sharia (Islamic Law)" part of the article's first sentence, which is something that I didn't do.

Furthermore, not only are all of the examples mentioned within the article overwhelmingly from the Hadith, but the Sharia and Zina pages already deal with traditional Islamic Law's interpretive allowance/disallowance of stoning, which makes this article a little different (subject wise) when compared to the prior two. Lastly, as for those who aren't familiar with the term Hadith, the word can be linked within the article and if one types in "Stoning to Death in Islam", they get redirected to this page anyway. Most/all pages about Islamic religious and legal terms on wikipedia, are actually titled through their Arabic names. Silver crescent 02:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright fine then. I see its going to be impossible to argue and win here, although I could but its not worth my time. I'm ok with your title as well. Thanks.--Matt57 23:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

--- Shortcuts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
Just wanted to drop you a note to say thank you for adding the court case details to the Timeline. Cheers. (→ Netscott ) 22:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

response to your message
Sorry for not responding. I really don't have an opinion on [www.wikiislam.org]. It is good because it groups the quranic verses together, but it is bad, because it is one-sided. It isn't like a forum on Islam. That, I would support.--Sefringle 07:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

About the category for deletion thing
You left a message on my talk page about the Category:Former Muslims deletion debate, saying that it "must be resolved soon and the Deletion notice must be taken out". You also asked on the category talk page why the category was being considered for deletion. Hope that answered your questions. See you around. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) When someone thinks something on Wikipedia should be deleted, they can nominate it for deletion. Then there is a discussion lasting 7 days.  Then an administrator looks at the discussion and decides whether or not there is consensus to delete it.  If there is no consensus to delete, it is kept.  Right now it seems that consensus is to keep that category.  Tomorrow is the 7th day (tecnically today is the 7th day but I stuck the discussion in the wrong place so it's tomorrow instead of today).  Therefore tomorrow an administrator will close the debate and remove the tag from the category page.  I cannot close it because I am not an administrator.  It will happen tomorrow all on its own.
 * 2) As for why it's being considered for deletion; did you read the message at the top of the discussion? Someone (not me) came by and thought it could be dangerous and tried to delete it without going through the proper channels.  I was just trying to help that person out by nominating it the proper way.  I was hoping they would come back and participate in the discussion and better explain their concerns about the category, but they didn't.  So as it stands it is being discussed because somone expressed some vague concerns about terrorism but didn't know what to do about it and obviously wasn't concerned enough to follow through by returning to see if anything had been done.


 * I don't know why an admin hasn't closed it yet... I was wondering that myself earlier today. Adimns have closed other discussions from that same day, but that one and several others haven't been closed yet.  I don't know why.  Maybe the admins are busy with other things.  I don't know.  It seems like all the ones from that day that have been closed were either delete or re-name and the ones where the consensus seems to be "keep" seem to be the ones that haven't been closed yet.  Maybe the admins aren't in as much of a rush to close those.  Who knows. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 17:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You said, "You didnt have to pay importance to an anonymous person." Aren't we all anonymous? We are all either IP addresses or psudonymous screen names here.  The person (User:66.126.82.49 (see their contributions here)) was someone contributing from an IP address who was fairly new and didn't understand how things worked and saw a page that they felt was threatening and scary.  My hope was that they could see the process of how things work, express their fears, have their fears calmed, and go away happy.  Meanwhile the Wikipedia community would be aware of something that appears threatening to outsiders.  An anonymous person is still a person, and people are important. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've asked on WP:VPA if non-admins can close deletion debates that are to be kept, and if not why. It was my understanding that one had to be an admin. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why are you getting so upset about this? The category isn't going to be deleted, it's not a big deal.  The IP's other contributions aren't vandalism, and we are supposed to assume good faith.  Not all IPs are vandals, just like not all new users are vandals.  In fact, most of Wikipedia's content comes from IPs.  I don't understand why you're so worked up. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * YES, its a big deal because someone (you) decided to noninate a category for deletion based on Anonymous Vandal edits of a user, who deleted text in the category page and threatened the people listed in the category. Thats the upsetting part. Now, work hard to get the category out of Deletion and dont listen to Vandals next time. Learn to see whats vandalism and when its not. The proper thing was for you to REVERT the vandalism. Instead you went along with the Vandal and decided to NOMINATE the category for Deletion. Amazing. --Matt57 18:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Kbdank71 has closed the debate. It's over, done, we don't need to think about it any more.  As for me opening the debate to begin with...  Now, I'm sorry, but a lot of people think that deleting content on Wikipedia works the same way that adding content does; you push edit, then delete or backspace.  New users don't know how to delete something that they feel shouldn't be there.  Page blanking is usually, but not always vandalism. This essay, for example says,  "Blanking is one of the most common forms of vandalism - however, it is also one of the actions most commonly misdiagnosed as vandalism, and editors should be careful that they do not accuse editors of it unjustly." (emphasis mine).  In this case, I honestly do not think that that was vandalism.  Another quote from the same essay describes exactly the type of situation I think that was, "Generally, editors may not replace articles with blank text. Even if the entire page is inappropriate, the deletion policy must be followed. New users, however, are unlikely to know this."  I do not see how the anon who blanked it "threatened the people listed in the category".  It seemed to me that the person percieved a threat to the people in the category and were trying to respond to that threat by eliminating it.  They did not threaten to do anything to the people in the category.  They simply expressed a view that the category was inappropriate, a view that I feel they had every right to and a view that I feel deserved its airing. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, ok. --Matt57 21:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Lists
I've replied to your comments on my talk page. Shimeru 20:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Walid Shoebat.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Walid Shoebat.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok  ☠  13:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalising!? and Me?
Dude, I have given a reason in the discussion page, read that and then point fingers.Akeeq 00:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And if you had trouble reading that, let me explain; which biography points out views of people at wiki done in the manner at Zakir Naik? None I believe. Which Biography is supposed to have biased viewpoints? NONE. Which biography is supposed to quote out of context and give wrong references, NONE. So if these points are found somewhere, I will surely oppose it. And if you didn't get it lemme say it clearly, All of this was and is being done at Zakir Naik's article, and I will/am opposing it.Akeeq 01:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Zakir Naik
Hi Matt,

There has been a lot of activity on the above mentioned page, and since you've been regularly involved I thought you could help me out. user:88.108.255.94 has made a number of changes- some OK, some not- and I'm finding it tricky to get rid of the weasly edits while maintaining the valid ones. So please just look over what I (will) do, just in case I mess up somewhere. Thanks --khello 04:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: 213.42.21.79
I've taken a look at it -- it's registered to an ISP in the United Arab Emirates, looks like, and is either a dynamic IP address or is shared among multiple users, not all of whom appear to be vandals. Future problems can lead to longer or more severe blocks, certainly, but at this time it appears that doing so could cause unnecessary collateral damage. Thanks for the thought, though. :) Luna Santin 01:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Dr, Zakir Naik and Ali sina

hi matt it seems to me that u r one sided either u r ali sina urself of u r a islamophobe(anti -islam). whats ur problem mate, i have made some changes in zakir naik and ali sina and u always seems to come and delete it why are u one sided. i have also given the video link which proves that please go and watch it if u want to critizise Dr naik do it and create a page on that name but zakir naiks page is supposed to be showing his biography not just criticism, and u seems to be on Ali sina payroll u have very nice things for him and dont like his critism.

i wana talk to u on this issues if u r open minded and want a discussion then lets do it otherwise ill complain all this to wikipedia admins.

plz reply me my wikipedia id is mak82hyd

HI matt i have just added some info to the page and its just informative and harmless hope u all will agree, given some references feel free to edit if u dont find it proper but please dont just delete my edits if u feel something is wrong modify it. thanks. --Mak82hyd 16:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

why dont u reply matt u does not seems to hear me looks like u r not impartial. i did not delete anything just added some critism Mak82hyd 05:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

OH I SEE i just did not realised ok thanks for pointing out can i just add some criticism?

i accept my mistake can we chat on yahoo or hotmail do u mind? thanks Mak82hyd 05:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ali sina critism
I want to add what yamin zakaria says about ali sina with references and yamin point of view of debate as well. Mak82hyd 06:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Matt, I totally agree with u but if u r honest and open minded just read zakir naik and ali sina biographies, u know what i am talking about, why is this hypocrisy and hatred towards islam. why cant be both zakir naik and ali sina biographies be impartial and anti islamic. Mak82hyd 06:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for ur suggestions matt, i respect ur views, i will work on it but right now i am busy writing dissertation. but as soon as i finish i shall do it and i will be more regular then i am now Mak82hyd 06:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks matt, i will add yamin data later. its 6.42 am in uk now whole night has passed, I probably better go to bed now. cheers Mak82hyd 06:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Death of Anwar Shaikh
There is a reference which claims that he died on 25 November 2006 in Wales, GB:

http://www.haindavakeralam.org/PageModule.aspx?PageID=2426&SKIN=W

Though it is a Hindu website it is unlikely that such a trivial thing will actually be a propaganda, as they only claim his death not murder by Islamofascists or any such thing.

Since the person in question is socially of a low profile, it is unlikely that secular reports of his death will be available in just two days.

Sorry I have registered recently on wiki. Though I have gone through the relevant policies it is possible that I may err unknowingly. Thanks Maquahuitl 13:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ali sina reply
matt, u said that ali sina page is his page and it will be about him so is zakir naik page does not belong to him why is all critism and anti naik thing there no one like his achievements written there pleae reply to questions --Mak82hyd 18:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Re Ali Sina: Not a ballot?
Hi Matt. I just put the tag to slow down the anon multiple voting (sockpuppeting) and users' first edits. If you don't see its necesity than that's fine w/ me. Cheers --  Szvest   Ω  Wiki Me Up ®  17:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Re Dealing with Vandals
Hi Matt. My modest experience in Wikipedia tells me that the issue is not that simple as it appears. It is true that removing content w/o discussion is considered vandalism but there's always a context covering that. In the case of Ali Sina, the removal of the content is part of:


 * Biographies of living persons - It is important to read this official policy. It is very hard to apply that to our case as there is a dispute whether Ali is a real person or not. But at least we can assume he is.

Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable — you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism.
 * Bullying or Stubbornness

I would suggest you assume good faith and that you invite the IP to discuss his reverts on the talk page. If the user doesn't want to do so than we can drop the assumption of good faith and start considering that as pure vandalism.

Last important thing. Personally, i believe in the freedom of editing in wikipedia though i am really against IP editing. Many editors and admins have been debating this very hard before at the village pump but still there is no serious concensus on that. YOu could prepare a draft or a proposal and discuss it at the village pump (proposals). I'd love to participate on that. --  Szvest   Ω  Wiki Me Up ®  18:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Re Criticism of the Qur'an. Hopefully, admin Tom harrison whom i trust too much protected the article. I hope involved parties discuss the issues at the talk page. The point can be synthetized as per admin Grenavitar commented earlier:
 * 'anti-Muslim' leaning editors want to point out these 'bad' things of the past and essentialize them as a constant of Islamic history. Our 'Muslim' leaning editors want to lessen or rationalize these views. Neither way works and it is very difficult to present this in a neutral light. We aren't a scholarly paper that can have a thesis and we aren't a paper encyclopedia which only covers the basics (which makes it much easier).
 * I've edited islam-related articles before but w/ the persistent edit warring between the two sides described above i decided to slow down my contributions re to those articles. I've been accused of being anti-semitic asshole and a member of the anti-Zionist cabal by wikipediareview.com gurus, a wikifascist by Daniel Brandt. However, i am still optimistic that wikipedia would still fight those kind of attitudes as i commented once at pbs.org/mediashift.
 * Vandalism is easy to spot and as i said earlier above, if the IP doesn't want to discuss than i'll block him personally. The problem is not about that kind of vandalism but the attitude of a few wikipedians. I can't just block those established users but there's a somehow long process that admins including myself can follow (i.e Requests for comment, Requests for arbitration, etc.). Feel free to contact me anytime you need help. Cheers --  Szvest   Ω  Wiki Me Up ®  15:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Answering-Islam.org
What's been going on with that article, do you know? Answer on my talk, please. Arrow740 03:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

islamonline.net
I noticed you left a comment on the delete discussion, but didn't vote.--Sefringle 00:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Islamic extremist terrorism
I don't know if you knew, but this article was nominated for deletion. Make sure to vote on it.--Sefringle 04:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Mecca
I am trying to make this article more of an article on the city, and less of a religous article, and so I nominated it for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Would you please vote on it?--Sefringle 21:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That AFD on the list of ex-Muslims
Well... it seems to me that trying to keep a list of the ex-members of a religion will spawn other lists like ex-Buddhists or ex-Bahai and at some point it just gets too obscure. I prefer pages on the general topic instead of a list - like "Apostate Muslims" as an article with the most prominent mentioned. KazakhPol 01:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily link
Note that TruthSpreader and Striver both said the WorldNetDaily link was notable. And the closing admin saw the Jim Ball link, which was brought up in the AfD; presumably this contributed to the decision of "reasonable argument that the site meets WP:WEB". Hope that helps.

Also, I do not think it helps your case to continually say that someone or someones are systematically censoring Wikipedia. If you feel that this is the case, you might do better to create a subpage of your userpage, list alleged incidents there, cite them with diffs, and then link to this page subtly in your signature. Every time you yell it, it inevitably sounds a little quieter. Just let whatever evidence you claim to have speak for itself. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 20:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Alternatively to a sub-page, you could simply turn your main user page, User:Matt57, into such a list. That would be both sufficiently prominent and sufficiently subtle imho (hope that makes sense). &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 17:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Matt, I just reverted the article and not intentionally deleted the link. you can go and check it. As you just copied and pasted the material from Ali sina article I just reverted it may be the link got deleted it was not intentional. I hope its clarified. regards, --Mak82hyd 00:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Quranic mentions of violence
I changed the name to make it acceptable.

On a different note, two vital policies of Wikipedia are at stake with respect to veil fetishism involving What Wikipedia is not and What Wikipedia is not. The article was created 2005 March 12. Suddenly, now it has come under an avalanche.--Patchouli 23:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

logo
Pleasure! I too think we need some more NPOV arround here. Feel free to add yourself, so long you mean it! I've not been that much involved with Islam articles yet, just Safiyya bint Huyayy, so let me know what is happening and where. Ta! frummer 01:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

hello Matt
although i appreciate you enquiring, i don't appreciate its aggressive and vindictive manner. i simply had some spare time to do maintenance, where i fixed the heading structure. i noticed there were two entries for the lists, so i removed it for the time being. had there been more entries as there are now i would not have removed it. why not before? hadn't noticed it before. this constant unjustified bad faith simply indicates lack of interest in collaborative editing, and i insist that you stop exuding it.  ITAQALLAH  08:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * sorry, i'm not sure you know what you're talking about. you are indulging in conspiracy theories. non-muslims and muslims have always been welcome to participate. wikiproject islam has never been the 'muslim guild', the latter was a totally separate wikiproject, which has now been removed per consensus of the community. incidentally, i had never signed up to it, so i'm not sure where you're getting these ideas. wikiproject islam has always been "NPOV". the aim of the wikiproject is to help improve the quality of Islam related articles. as long as you agree with that and abide by policy/guideline, we should get along just fine.  ITAQALLAH   14:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

well hopefully others can help in putting the templates up on all of the related pages, there are certainly loads to go through.  ITAQALLAH  07:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * i know that you personally find them to be of significant importance, but topics covering a highly specific area of knowledge such as recently published topical books (like the ones you have been working on), personalities unknown to the casual reader (i.e. Parvin Darabi or Zakir Naik) and fringe-notability organisations (FFI) would be considered articles of extremely trivial (i.e. low) importance to any wikiproject by conventional standards, on our importance scale they'd belong be in the low importance category: they're not topics remotely central to the core knowledge of Islam as should be presented in an encyclopaedia. there are far more core-topic essential articles demanding our attention.  ITAQALLAH   11:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

apologies
something terrible happened - it looks like someone's been messing with my account whilst i was at the printer (uni. library). is there a procedure for this sort of thing? Nehpetskenawi 23:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Nehpetskenawi
I've already informed the ANI board. Thanks. Parthi talk/contribs 23:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a password issue - I was already signed in but have left the computer. Thanks though will change it anyway Nehpetskenawi 23:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

FFI
matt, why is Ali sina views and debates are being written in FFI page. its not his page its about website so just write about website not about the founder. how can i write about yusuf qaradawi who made the islamonline.net website on the website page, its wrong. just write about FFI on the article what his founder said or thinks does not matter. Mak82hyd 00:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase what you say, "why write about Muhammad on the Islam page ? After all he was just the founder. The Islam page is about Islam and not the founder.". That doesn't make sense does it ?. What the founder of 'x' says is relevant in an article about 'x' if he is saying it in relation to 'x' as opposed to say other unrelated to FFI personal life matters e.g. any claims of death threats against the founder are not notable but a challenge issued by the founder on the FFI web site are notable. Ttiotsw 05:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Great point, thanks T. Yes, Mak, should I go ahead and delete information about Muhammad from the Islam page? Hopefully you should get the point now.--Matt57 06:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know why Khalid Zaheer said this. This is my guess that he is using Government ISP. Because in Pakistan, internet is subsidized. ISP's can bypass Government network easily and satellite internet is heavily used by private sector because of its reliability. If you want to put this information, you need to source it as well, otherwise it will constitute Original research.  TruthSpreader Talk 16:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Secondly, Khalid Zaheer even hasn't put the discussion on their website, hence, we don't even have a secondary source to prove that discussion is even happening or not!  TruthSpreader Talk 16:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not I've doubt in this debate. It is what wikipedia's policy says. You need to bring information from WP:V and WP:RS sources. The information needs to be attested by someone!  TruthSpreader Talk 16:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Book covers
Hi, is there a WP policy which restricts a book cover image to only its own article? thanks. --Matt57 19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Matt57. Please read the book and magazine templates.
 * Magazine cover: This image is of a magazine cover, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the magazine or the individual contributors who worked on the cover depicted. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of magazine covers: to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question,
 * Book cover: This image is of a book cover, and the copyright for it is most likely owned either by the artist who created the cover or the publisher of the book. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers: to illustrate an article discussing the book in question. Cheers --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  19:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute. Template:Book_cover says "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question". It doesnt have to be the article exclusively devoted to the book. If ANY article is discussing this book, then the picture can be displayed. Also, I'm not seeing any explicit policy that says that the image cannot be used on its own as I had put in some of the articles. Some time I may look for clarification for this thing from other members. If you want to remove the images for now, you may.--Matt57 21:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi again Matt. I am not the only one who knows about the application of such terms. You can have a look at these as well; replaced non-free with free image and Using free image instead. Cheers --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  12:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

yamin
lol, my friend says its http://www.iiop.org/Final_Response.php. regards. Mak82hyd 11:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Matt, I've been using the Internet Archive instead, like this, because ICSSA has an article here while the International Institute of Peace doesn't and IIOP goes somewhere else. Also the Internet Archive's version is not going to go down, whereas the IIOP could pull that from their site at any time. IIOP's version is a little easier to read though, so we're probably best to just link both. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 13:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for the brainstar. --Sefringle 04:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Jerry Klein Islamophobia Parody
Hi, thanks for your input during the question to delete the info on Jerry Klein's Islamophobia Parody. The decision was to not delete the article - here's what an admin posted:
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below...

The result was keep. Majorly (Talk) 18:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I'll rename the article to "Jerry Klein Islamophobia Radio Experiment" as many people in the deletion discussion link comedians like Stephen Colbert with the word parody and Jerry Klein was not trying to be funny. Thanks again for your input.--Wowaconia 20:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

edit summaries
please strive to use accurate edit summaries. this for example was totally incorrect and demonstrates that you reverted, claiming that removal had been "unexplained", without looking at the talk page. PN Oak had also been covered on the talk page.  ITAQALLAH  17:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You assumed bad faith by calling my edit summary deceptive, which it was not. I'm not expected to see the last 500 edits and see how that image had been taken out or included. All I saw was that Zora took the image out without explaining why. It doesnt matter how many times the image is taken out. It must be explained everytime its taken out - right? Thats what Edit summaries are for, right? I didnt see you telling her that HER edit summary was incorrect. If she had explained why she took it out, that would have resolved it. Please assume good faith next time.--Matt57 05:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ? your edit summary was "deceptive", intentionally or not. she did explain, both in her edit summaries (i.e. 29 Dec edit) and extensively on talk. edit summaries are for describing the change made (and besides, you definitely don't attempt to justify every change you make in your summaries, and neither does anyone else for that matter-- that is what talk is for). that you simply refused to bother looking at the talk page or a little further down the article history doesn't permit making silly excuses, Matt. you called it "unexplained", and that is just wrong any way you look at it. you have also added a fraudulent caption for the above picture, you clearly know very little about the picture and almost nothing of what event it depicts.  ITAQALLAH   19:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * She did NOT explain her image deletion in THIS edit summary. A Fraudulent caption, you say? Can you please stop assuming bad faith or do I have to warn you to stop making personal attacks? What is the correct caption? Give a link where it tells the story of the image.--Matt57 21:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * absurd. she did explain her deletion, she does not have to re-iterate the reasoning every time she removes it. you would know that she had explained it had you looked closely or attempted to assess the dispute, but as you had done neither you would not be in the position to make an unqualified statement. assuming bad faith? could you please explain where? the caption is false and clearly made up- that is known as fraudulent- whether it was intended or not. "deceptive" and "fraudulent" describe the contents of your edit summary and caption respectively, they have nothing to do with casting doubts over your behaviour. the latter is something i do not intend.
 * can you tell us from where you obtained your current caption? to me, it seems like total nonsense. the image is of Muhammad before prophethood (so which Muslims are you referring to?), being entrusted by Quraishi to put the black stone on the Kaaba after its reconstruction.  ITAQALLAH   22:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, everytime a material is deleted, it should be mentioned WHY it is being deleted, whether its being deleted for the first time or 100'th. I will correct the caption some time. In the mean while please try to assume good faith and dont use words on other editors like deceptive and fraudulent without investigating.--Matt57 23:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Yes, everytime a material is deleted, it should be mentioned WHY it is being deleted, whether its being deleted for the first time or 100'th" it was mentioned why in the history as well as on talk. you choose to narrowly examine just one summary, which is extremely frivolous. you knew there was warring, you should have "investigated" before making unqualified statements, which turned out to be false.
 * "dont use words on other editors like deceptive and fraudulent without investigating", i used those words to describe the content, not the contributor. per this discussion, if anyone needs to do "investigating" before they make statements, it's you ^_^.  ITAQALLAH   00:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I dont have time to argue endlessly over a little edit where a user removed an image without explaining why. You're not even that user, so please WP:Cool Off, or whatever that shortcut is. --Matt57 06:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad(saw)
Peace, Good matt, My dear bro, you are coming to the way of True religion, Islam slowly. U respect and love our beloved Prophet Muhammad(saw) so much that U have even placed a painting of somebody. any ways What I want to remind you is Please If you like Muhammad(Saw) obey him and follow islam but dont start worshipping him as he said Only Almighty can be worshipped and none except him can be worshipped. Muhammad(saw) is just the Final prophet of Almighty. I admire your love and respect for Prophet Muhammad(saw) but remember Idol worshipping is a big Sin in Islam. Peace. Mak82hyd 21:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mak, thanks for your guessing, but I'll remain an athiest. However I appreciate the good deeds of everyone. The caption of the picture is what I had heard of Mohammed and undoubtedly this was a good example of leadership skills shown by Muhammed, if the incident really happened. However a display of the picture of Muhammad, if even if I was converting to Islam, does not mean in my opinion that we are indulging in idol worship. This is something I dont understand. This is definitely not idol worship. We have a picture of Wikipedia's logo here. That doesnt mean we worship it. Its just a representation of information, like text. See my point? Yes it goes contrary to what you have been taught but I believe I'm right - pictures are simply another representation of information. A picture says more than a 1000 words, as goes the proverb. --Matt57 22:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Now this is amusing to me. I'm beginning to wonder if these online da'ees realize that they sound like snake-oil salesmen when they jump to conclusions like this.
 * No offense, Mak, but that's how it sounds. --C.Logan 02:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

my Userpage. …using wikEd
I've made it a slightly deeper blue, but thanks for changing it, it looks much better now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:FFI-logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:FFI-logo.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 12:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali Sina
I completely disagree with you. We can't present what Ali Sina says as facts. For example consider teh following, which is in the article thatnks to reverts of my edits:

''Haseeb-ul-hasan Siddiqui, a leading cleric of the Muslim organization, the Sunni Ulema Board has also warned Ali and others behind faithfreedom.org of the consequences that they would have to face if they don’t close the website. He is reported to have said "According to Islam, the criticisers of Islam should be stoned to death."''

If Siddiqui is a living person, then this is a libel agianst him, and shoudl either be attributed or removed completely.Bless sins 00:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You wrote "This isnt libel. Ali writes about it here: http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/Ghamidip6.htm - you're saying that Ali has lied?"
 * What I find interesting is your question "you're saying that Ali has lied"? Does Ali even exist? Ok let's suppose there really is a guy named Ali Sina. This Ali Sina says "Muslims have no pride, no self esteem, no dignity, no honor."Defeating Islam Do you really expect me to believe that?
 * I am a Muslim. Do you seriously think that just because of my religion I have no dignity? Do you really believe that I have no honor?
 * Give me a break. Surely you must agree that Ali Sina, whoever that may be, is a liar. Bless sins 00:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We have secondary reliable sources for Muhammad, thus we can state his actions as fact. Where we don't have reliable sources, and general agreement, we attribute the source to its author. We don't have any secondary reliable sources for Ali Sina, or FFI.Bless sins 02:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, do you agree that Ali Sina makes false statements?Bless sins 02:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You said "What false statements does Ali sina make? Give me one example." I already gave you one example. He says "Muslims have no pride, no self esteem, no dignity, no honor."Defeating Islam Surely you must agree that the above statement of Ali Sina is completely false. Bless sins 17:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ali Sina said "Muslims have no pride...". If we simply break that sentence down, we get: "Muslim" = no pride. "No pride" mean 0 pride. It disgusts me that you think Sina's "statement is generally true".
 * It's impossible for me to agree with you and Sina, that Muslims, in general, have no dignity, no honour.
 * It is like a white supremecist saying that "Blacks are generally inferior to whites, though not all black are inferior."
 * "I think we're going into debate now which I wont do." I think that's very difficult to do since you tend to agree with Sina's extremist views.Bless sins 18:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't possibly improve article by presenting teh views of an extremist as fact. In fact, the statements must be removed per WP:BLP.Bless sins 18:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

=
============== Hi Matt, I had no idea wher and how to send you a message so i am typing it here>

I had no idea what i was doing that made the "FFI banned in some muslim countries" dissappear. What was happening was that i edited and provided a list of countries that view the FFI site according to % based on site meter. And then using the line about saudi Arabia.Then when i began inserting it somehow the references after ref no. 21 was being messed up. I understood that it was due to my recent edit on the countries... topic.

You see thats how you will see i had 15 edits in like 15 minutes kind of. I am new and plus i was not aware how to use the discussion page and get answers. so i did my best to restore the page. I could not. Surprisingly someone else was also editing the same page. I thought he may help or he may restore the page properly. But that did not happen. I am pleased that user Titsow and you have spoken about it. Again i have no idea how to message you guys so i am using this page to type me response. I dont know if you or anyone will read this. If you can let me know how to send messages to users. so next time i can bring it to someonelses attention when i go wrong.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Z2qc1"

Ramadan Riots, up for deletion
Hi there Matt. (Mr. 57?) I've seen a bit of your work on various Wiki articles on Islam and have been impressed. I could really use a vote of confidence to counter a semi-hysterical muslim petition to ban the article on the french Ramadan Riots. Check out the deletion talk page. Thanks. TimothyHavelock 08:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User:72.88.165.163
Matt, I have started documenting the IP addresses being used as sockpuppets by a single user:. Please feel free to add to the list if you find any more puppets pop up. It's only a matter of time before we find out if this IP range matches a known user. --ProtectWomen 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! The editor has insulted me directly in one of his edits, and I can see an abusive history over-all among all the known IP's used.  This sock is very disruptive to the pages involved, most unfortunately.
 * By the way I think I will use your Wikiproject userbox, it looks very nice :) --ProtectWomen 22:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Netscott is an admin. Arrow740 22:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Netscott is not an admin. You can check at List_of_administrators. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, he seems like one. Strange. Arrow740 22:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The only difference between an admin and a regular user is the tools they have, tools which netscott does not have. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My reason for leaving Islam is quite simple
I found naturalistic hedonistic egoist utilitarianism to be more favorable. Just to let you know, my opinion of Ali Sina has not changed since I left Islam. He's still an idiot. Thanks.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  23:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to be rude. Also, I have your answer here. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  03:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As I have already said, I don't accept Islam because I don't agree with its ethical system. I find the concept of free will to be irreconcilable with omnibenevolence. I don't have any specific qualms with Islam, simply because I find them irrelevant. There is no reason to even consider them. God doesn't exist, so why should I care what Islam's moral system is, seeing as how it is based on God (per Riddle of Epicurus). Also, I think that the Euthyphro is another one of the reasons I reject Islam. Also, I am currently in an email debate with a Muslim, and I'll put that in my blog as soon as he gives me permission to do so. It may help you further understand my viewpoint. Thanks. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  04:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Lame, he said no to putting the debate in my blog. I'll try to find another Muslim with which to debate. I'll let you know when that happens. Cheers. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  05:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems like taqiyya, but what does he have to gain by saying he defected? Arrow740 05:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Its something some people do for different reasons e.g if they feel they're being attacked because of their faith, they'll just attempt to shake off the label in order to "disarm" the attack - this is what they perceive even though its not a personal attack, its just another viewpoint. Some people get tired of their faith being criticized and feel safer when they think the other person doesnt know. I suspect it as well but I'm open to some evidence right now. Kirby that he's a Critic of Islam and I've asked him to show me atleast SOME edits of his here on Wikipedia that reflect him being a Critic of Islam. If he's unable to show any edits as proof, we know who spoke the truth and who didnt. Hey Kirby, I saw you said to Netsooger "You dont fucking own the template" - whoa. You must be lucky you werent warned by an admin for that. --Matt57 05:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Also what is interesting is that while Kirby is profusely crital of Judaism on his blog here, it doesnt seem that he is critical at all of Islam in the same fashion even to a lesser degree. So yes Kirby, please show us some evidence of your claim of being critical of Islam. --Matt57 05:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Taqqiya. By the way, I told netooger or whatever that he doesn't own the template for good reason. I may have been too harsh, but my encounters with Messianics on Wiki hasn't been good. Also, using fuck as an intensive isn't something warnable. And don't be ridiculous. I'm not profusely critical of Judaism. That which you gave a link of, is a criticism of Christianity, not Judaism. Maybe you meant my anger towards certain passages in the Old Testament which talk about how the Israelites murdered and raped the native inhabitants of Palestine? That is a criticism of all three Abrahamic faiths. Please see this and this. Thanks. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  06:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but the only people today looking to historical examples of that behavior as a model are Muslims, and that's the entire problem. Arrow740 06:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why does that matter? The past still exists. So in 100 years, if Islamic extremism dies out, will that mean that arguments against Islam as violent would become invalid? Truth values are not temporal. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  09:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirby, Christianity or Judaism, my point is: you criticized one of these religions very strongly. I did not see you doing the same for Islam. You are a Muslim. I have seen no evidence of you criticising Islam anywhere and the fact that you were'nt able to show me any edits. Ahh look at this edit! Here you changed "murdered" to "kill" for Van Gogh's death. This confirms you are a Muslim. If you had left Islam, you would never do this and attack the Dutch legal system so strongly. Nice try. So again, please show me some edits of yours where you were critical of Islam? I guess you dont have any, right? And you call yourself a former Muslim? --Matt57 12:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, Kirby claims to be a former Muslim. Look at what he has in his signature: ♥ . Taqiyya doesnt work, Kirby. I'll watch your edits more closely now. You should really join the 'freedom fighters'. You should share the same fate as them. --Matt57 13:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So because I advocate the precise use of terms, I'm a Muslim? So because I have Islam in a heart in my signature, that makes me a Muslim? Maybe the reason why I have it in a heart, is because Islam is not just a religion; Islam is also a culture. Judaism is also a culture. I know plenty of atheist Jews that still celebrate Rosh Hashanah and Passover and whatnot. Same goes for Hinduism. As an Iranian, I still celebrate Noruz and 4šanbe suri (which was last night) and 13bedar. Does that make me secretly Zoroastrian? No!

I don't have to prove anything to you. If you don't believe me, then tough. Don't wikistalk me or I'll immediately have admins tracking you. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  17:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, gtfo.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  18:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirby, dont threaten me alright? I'll be watching your edits and see what edits you are making. There's no such thing as "edit stalking" so GTFO to you as well, mfb. Thanks and happy editing. --Matt57 18:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is. WP:STALK:

The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.

Stop annoying me.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  18:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirbymf, I'm not here to annoy you, please dont assume stuff. I'll be here though to make sure you are not taking out any valid content from WP. Thats not stalking. I'm waiting for you to take this to the admins. Why havent you done that till now? --Matt57 20:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny how you tell me not to assume stuff, yet you accuse me of taqqiya. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  18:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * please do not troll my talk page with contemptuous and aggressive remarks as you did here. please note the talk page etiquettes at the top of the talk page. thank you.  ITAQALLAH   06:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * in fact, you've been doing this rather frequently of late. per this:
 * Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
 * --  ITAQALLAH   07:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see a personal attack there. Arrow740 07:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * you don't think accusing people of taqiyya is a personal attack?  ITAQALLAH   08:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think if someone is obviously (or almost certainly) lying, pointing this out is not a personal attack. Arrow740 08:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * accusing someone of deception is a personal attack. Kirbytime is not a Muslim. harrassing him, as Matt and others have done, is just not on.  ITAQALLAH   08:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He says he loves Islam, calls terrorists freedom fighters, fights for the Holocaust article to be changed to alleged Holocaust, exclusively criticizes Judaism and Christianity, and hates Ali Sina. I think the evidence is pretty clear. What's the problem, anyway? Taqiyya is part of your religion, why are you implying that it is wrong? Arrow740 08:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * none of the things you listed makes him a Muslim. "He says he loves Islam", i don't believe so. i think you've been spending too much time at FFI. Taqiyya is not a part of Islam. and lying is not a part of Islam.  ITAQALLAH   08:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The heart in his signature links to the article on Islam. I don't think you've been spending enough time at FFI. Lots of Muslims try to spread the message "Fear Allah and die Muslim" there, you could join them. Arrow740 09:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

ItaqAllah, you removed the links without people reaching consensus. That is considered vandalism. Thanks to you, there will be more links in that section now. I hope that makes you happy. And yes, Taqiya unfortunately or fortunately is a part of Islam. See the last line of this hadith. I wont go into debate, but that hadith and some others like it speak for itself. And yes KirbyTime was obviously not telling the truth when he said he left Islam. He could not explain exactly why he left Islam and he still has that Heart symbol in his signature so obviously, he is still a Muslim and we just saw some Taqiya in action. --Matt57 12:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice link Matt, that one says a lot. Arrow740 03:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This is getting more and more bizarre. My gosh, just because I'm not Muslim doesn't mean I cannot respect Islam. This is pissing me off, so I'm going to put my hearts in my sig just to prove my point.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  16:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirby, so you have a black heart for an athiest philosopher, how nice - figures. --Matt57 17:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The amount of anti-Muslim vitriol on this page as exhibited in Matt57 and Arrow740's stereotyping of Islam as an anti-Semitic, hateful religion is absolutely disgusting. You should be really ashamed of yourselves. Tiamut 18:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not antisemitic? Arrow740 03:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Tiamut, I never came across you before. Where did you get the idea that I'm stereotyping Islam? If you are trying to show the positive side of Islam, can people not share different opinions? I think we are now talking beyond what Wikipedia says. Wikipedia is not a discussion board on Islam. If you have something to talk about relating to actual articles on Wikipedia, please go ahead otherwise please keep your accusations to yourself.--Matt57 19:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Also aber rathe ich euch, meine Freunde: misstraut Allen, in welchen der Trieb, zu strafen, mächtig ist! Das ist Volk schlechter Art und Abkunft; aus ihren Gesichtern blickt der Henker und der Spürhund. Misstraut allen Denen, die viel von ihrer Gerechtigkeit reden! Wahrlich, ihren Seelen fehlt es nicht nur an Honig. Und wenn sie sich selber 'die Guten und Gerechten' nennen, so vergesst nicht, dass ihnen zum Pharisäer Nichts fehlt als — Macht! -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  20:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Quotation
Hi, I think this part is sufficient for that article and I don't want to violate copyright rule but you can find all of it. here You can add it if you'd like. Sa.vakilian(t-c) --12:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the beginning of that paragraph is necessary. Please do it yourself if you think it's necessary. Sa.vakilian(t-c) --12:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam and slavery lead
Dear interested editor: Please visit here: in the next few days and give your vote and your proposals on how the lead may be reworked and reformed to meet GA criteria before next nomination.DavidYork71 04:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Nietzche
Hi Matt, the passage left on your page is a quote from Nietzche. I've copied and pasted a translation from here, which is: "But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful! 	They are people of bad race and lineage; out of their countenances peer the hangman and the sleuth-hound. Distrust all those who talk much of their justice! Verily, in their souls not only honey is lacking. 	And when they call themselves "the good and just," forget not, that for them to be Pharisees, nothing is lacking but--power!" I'll leave to you to figure out what it means in the context in which it was quoted. Best wishes, semper fictilis 03:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not very difficult. Matt57 has threatened me numerous times to block me, report me, "I see you getting blocked in a couple of weeks, if not months, mark my words"User_talk:Kirbytime/munafiqun. So obviously, when I quote someone who criticizes the impulse to punish people, matt57 naturally assumes that I placed it in bad faith and wants me punished for it. Irony of ironies, all is irony. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  19:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Wikistalking is getting annoying
Congrats, you can look at my contribs. Notice how I edit articles wholly unrelated to Islam? I have better things to do than bicker over stupid religions, like help people out at ref desks check here, as well as help identify foreign language articles. When you call me a "troll" on the Talk:Child pornography page, doesn't it occur to you that such a thing is utterly self-defeating? Looking at your contribs, you have NEVER edited a single article pertaining to pornography. I have edited several, and I plan on doing more in the future. So tell me, how did you reach the talk page of that article, where I have a big ongoing discussion? There is absolutely no way you could have possibly stumbled onto that page except through my contribs. And what did you post there? You contributed ZERO to improving the article. All you did was slander me. This is the very definition of wikistalking. Also, you have followed me onto the talk pages of several users, and again slander me, when the issue is totally unrelated to you (again, check your contribs, you have never edited the Israeli apartheid article). It's not funny, it's not smart, it's a waste of MY time and YOUR time, stop harassing me, go make babies (ignore this if you are sterile), and leave me alone. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  19:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, no I'm not wikistalking. --Matt57 22:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You totally refuted me. Good job. I bet you're actually a Christian. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  22:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So is that what you mean by labelling him a munafiq (hypocrite)? Arrow740 22:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ??? I haven't labeled anyone a munafiq. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  23:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't bother me either way. I think people are too touchy around here. Arrow740 23:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirbytime, what was your objective then of moving talk content between me and David Spart to a directory called "munafiqun" ? --Matt57 00:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just a NAME. You want me to move it to User_talk:Kirbytime/gaysexorgy?-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  19:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirby, I'm not wrong when I say your conduct, language and demeanour will get you blocked here eventually. Anyway, the quote you left for me from the athiest philosopher was interesting.--Matt57 01:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop Wikistalking again . Following me on articles you have never edited with the sole purpose of slander is not helpful to Wikipedia-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  19:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirbytime, please dont accuse me of wikistalking. I found some of the articles you were working on interesting and commented on them. There's nothing wrong with that. Your request for controversial pictures is something I can hardly keep myself from commenting on obviously. Please be less paranoid and WP:AGF. --Matt57 20:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't comment on the articles, you commented on me. Major difference.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  22:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  22:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Matt...just to let you know, I completely agree with you. I find no need for lewd pictures like the ones Kirby is requesting. MetsFan76 00:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Even administrators have called Kirbytime a troll. Thankfully they realized what he is up to. Anyone can see that he was trying to push buttons. And if he was not, its even more disturbing. Anyway, seeing all his requests and edits I'm think there's a good chance he doesnt like Chris Hansen.--Matt57 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Islam and pork
An editor has nominated Islam and pork, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 18:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

List of books critical of Islam
I have added a "" template to the article List of books critical of Islam, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Pablothegreat85 05:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

re Kirbytime
I've warned him. If he trolls anymore I'll block him. Herostratus 04:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Taqiyya and Sunni vs. Shia
It's interesting how Shia admit to engaging in Taqiyya but Sunni deny it. Yet both sects follow the Qur'an.

Let me ask you this, Matt: is there any Taqiyya more impressive than lying to deny that you are lying? (lol) --ProtectWomen 18:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea there's lots of differences between the sects. Its a vicious cycle, this Taqqiya.--Matt57 22:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for this excellent link. Best Regards, NN 14:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, time and truth are on our side! NN 02:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for another excellent link from American Thinker. I have added text to the article from the link. Best Regards, NN 19:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Translation help
Hi. Your sentence says: "This Qods-occupier regime must be wiped out of the world". Where did you find that? Farhoudk 19:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

REVERT KING
Have you forgotten this message you received earlier "You have been blocked for violation of WP:3RR at Ali Sina. Almost all of your recent edits consist of either edit warring or calling people vandals."

I said that i have not deleted anything other than that which was difficult to find. I summarized the rest. If my deletion was a problem you should have included on that reward comment and provided specific ref (page no. or etc). Dont just revert it cuz its easy. your behaviour is no different than any of the muslims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Z2qc1 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

"Hadith"?
I've commented out your supposed quote of Hadith. Search usc.edu turned up nada: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=tabari+site%3Ausc.edu+&btnG=Search 12:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What makes you believe that the quoted text, is from any of the hadith collections on the website that you mention above? -- Karl Meier 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Netscott, how could you not search google here? Its all over the internet. Sorry but this is a valid Islamic quotation. FURTHER, USC does not contain Tabari or all the hadith collections, so what were you trying to do? --Matt57 17:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Zero RSes. Give me a break... all chaff... ie: "Prophet of Doom"? Find me one reliable source that says that's an authentic hadith and I'll be sure to not engage a user page review to have such content removed. Remember we're not here to soapbox but to write an encyclopedia. 17:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reliable source? What do you mean? There's not a SINGLE Tabari collection online (nice, after 1400 years even that couldnt be achieved, quite sad). In that case, get ItaqAllah to remove the verse from his user page too. Lets be fair. I'll closely copy your procedure to get Itaq's verse removed as well so go ahead. And oh, there's so much other good stuff to use from reliable sources like USC, so please go ahead by all means, whatever you want to do. Actualy, here's the reference: "Al-Tabari, Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir. The History of al-Tabari. Vol.IX: The Last Years of the Prophet. Translated and annotated by Ismail K. Poonawala. State University of NewYork Press, Albany, 1990 (pages 112-114) " -- I can place this reference on my Talk page if you want. And you were emailed by Itaqallah about this, correct? I didnt see you guys talking to each other. --Matt57 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Going to have to verify that at the library. Matt I must say how you show such devotion to Muhammad by displaying his image on your talk page here is remarkable. 20:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, your talk on User talk:Arrow740 is what brought this on... I was never contacted by Itaqallah. 20:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes please do verify that and let me know. Tabari is a great book. We should have it online infact where people can search it easily. There are lots of interesting quotes in Tabari. Well yes thats an interesting image, i.e. the way he was able to resolve the dispute of the stone. --Matt57 20:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, the provenance of the quoted tradition aside, here is how I look at it. Do you have the right to have it on your userpage? By my reading of policy, no - it's polemical - but then so is a whole lot of cruft that is allowed elsewhere, so maybe you do. But, does it help us create the encyclopedia, and isn't the encyclopedia why we are here?Proabivouac 05:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It may very well indirectly lead to improvement of the encyclopedia. Arrow740 06:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Prov, yes, if anyone can have a verse or hadith on their user page, so can I. If Wikipedia prohibited the display of a verse or hadith on all user's pages, then I will follow the rule, otherwise not. Its ok to have verses on user pages, its all part of education, which is what an encyclopedia is for too, so yes, we're actually helping the mission.--Matt57 13:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you enable e-mail? Arrow740 22:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont like email but I'll see what I can do, thanks. --Matt57 22:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You could enable it for long enough to e-mail me using the "e-mail this user" feature. Arrow740 05:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Matt57, I'm going to invite you once again to climb down from this ongoing confrontation with Itaqallah. Removing the quoted hadith would be a sign of flexibility and goodwill. That Itaqallah displays his own scriptural message is beside the point.Proabivouac 21:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?
i did not vandalise, i removed incorrect or misenterpreted statements. In islam marrying ones own sister is Haram and Not permitted but, marrying someone of another family is permitted, she becomes the wife, marrying the wifes own sisiter is permitted, because the wife is not your sister and neither is Her sister your own sister. so, i have removed the incorrect statements because i Know. Im not vandalising as you are falsely accusing. If you can provide an authentic source where it says that marrying your wifes sister is Haram, than you atleast have an argument here. Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.4.77.150 (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Edit: I forgot to mention that it also applies to slaves, having relationships or marriage with a slave and her own sister is permitted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.4.77.150 (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
 * yes, i know and understand. but exactly what are the sources that confirms us Those statements? because those referenced lines dont lead to anywhere, there were no proper links nor nothing. and what im saying is Not personal opinion. it is true unless you can even give slight proof on otherwise.


 * Continued here- Talk:Ma_malakat_aymanukum_and_sex

Sockpuppetry
They are edits of his sockpuppets made while under block. Please do what you think fit with them - revert if you think they are good. kind regards Merbabu 15:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Time out?
Re 'the pics', I say we take time out, and come back tomorrow. I know there is GF in you, and there is in me too. If you don't agree with the need for time out, in the meantime while i try to walk away,then please at least be, well, - you know, I'm appealing to our good natures. Please make it easier for me to walk away for 12 or 24 hours. kind regards Merbabu 15:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

quiet comment
Hi Matt, a couple of things to consider about DavidYork71 edits, when restoring to an edit by a sockpuppet you take on responsibility for the edit please ensure the content is properly sourced. Also where you receive message from DY or his sock then include that into article content or comment on talk pages, please beware of WP:MEAT. Suggestion from me for both you and Merbabu, when DY is actively editing under sockpuppets as he was last night please be cautious on your talk page comments as they can appear to be uncivil, even to the point of trolling. There are 1.6~1.7 millions articles in here maybe just leave the contentious ones alone for night and do something else. Gnangarra 23:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned or blocked user. As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All your edits have been reverted. this is the message socks get when they have been blocked Gnangarra 00:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Regime
Regime definitely has a connotation in some situations, so I switch to 'government' since it is definitely neutral. While I'm sure you can search Google for "regime connotation" (or something like that) yourself, I'll give you a few right now to show that it definitely exists should be in the text. The point is that the term is at least questionable, so there is no reason to actually change it back. In fact I am not sure why you wanted to change it back; perhaps you prefer the connotation? Anyway, I'm going to undo anything you've done to the end of restoring the connotative wording as 'regime' is just iffy. It doesn't hurt to use safer wording, so I don't know why you'd go out of your way to use questionable wording. It just doesn't make sense, if you indeed believe it to be a neutral term, that you would go out of your way to change one neutral term to another. But of course it isn't a neutral term :( Please explain to me why you bothered.

I'd also ask that you change 'regime' to 'government of ____' as you run across it. While it is possible that some of the uses may be neutral, to be on the safe side we should just stay to undoubtedly neutral wording. Besides, with Iran-related things it is more likely to be the negative connotation. I'll get back to you about the link removals in a bit. Thanks. The Behnam 07:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting your edits to Islamic Paradise
I have reviewed the diffs of the reverts that I made, and decided that they were not vandalism. As I use Lupin's Anti Vandal Tool (A very helpful peice of software), I can revert a vandal edit easily every couple of seconds. In the speed of this editing, I sometimes mistake legitimate edits for vandalism. My rationale for reverting your edits were that the comments about "Big breasts" seemed like much of the vandalism I get from immature middle schoolers, and the "Rivers of wine" did not seem factual because Alcohol consumption is forbidden in Islam (From what I have heard). I did not realize you provided references- your summaries should have pointed this out for me. I apoligize for not assuming good faith.

Ninja! 02:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

my point is clear
the point is very clear, FFI praises cuyrus (after all they tend to be not biased, or at least thats what I thought so), yet again there are huge fallacies on his iranian page (i hope u can read persian, if not consult a persian friend), like the khmomieni's link basically the khomieni's speech is for Ali not Mohammed. (whats the point since he is against mohammad 'using ur logic of whats the point', also the marriage he is talking about isnt called islamic marriage, it is called mut'aa marriage, which has nothing to do with islamic) u can criticise any religion, but u dont have to lie to prove ur point.

you see when I edited it to explain what I meant u erased it being an OR, next time I just listed from his site, then it is still an OR, now with little editing then u raise the question what's the point.

my point is this: if you pose that you are pro justice and 'humanity', then prove it by being very neutral and dont praise someone then slnader some one else. It is clearly that you are very keen to filter out stuff, and you are not staying neutral when it comes to editing such pages. I do appreciate honesty here.

BTW: Im not here to defend Islam nor Muslims, and I keep doing the same on every information that I see wrong and I have evidence to prove it wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.35.51 (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I think you forgot to sign in. --Matt57 11:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Merzbow and his attacks
Look at this please: and. Despite my bringing up legitimate grievances of the article I am attacked as being "easily offended" even they are promoting conspiracy theories like Eurabia by Bat Ye'or as "criticism of Islam" and calling Pat Robertson a "critic" of Islam (he calls Muslims devils and believes Muslims will burn in hell) even though they are clearly bigots. The double standard here is that if Bat Ye'or was promoting a similar conspiracy theory about Jews taking over Europe, she would be labeled a anti-Semite not a "critic" of Judaism. Can you please help there with the bullying or at least raise the issue with other admins if you don't want to look into it? Merzbow's actions in particular are reprehensible with his pasting of "This guy is a Christian, I'm easily offended" all over the place and calling me a troll. Khorshid 05:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tariq, Khorshid gave a similiar message to 2 other amins. I had left a message for that admin there, and will repeated it here for you:
 * Khurshid, the 2nd link you gave to Alex was actually a Wikipedia bug (see his talk page). You should have first contacted Merzbow, instead of bothering an admin first.
 * Tariq, the admins must be tired of directly dealing with Islam related issues. I'm guessing out of the 1000 or so admins, atleast 10 must be regularly bombarded with Islam related issues. There must be a strong solution to this. Maybe users could be told "Please follow policies and procesdures (RfC, DR, etc) if you have concerns, dont bother us with the issues directly", becuase this really drains admins and takes up their time over small matters and thus makes Wikipedia suffer. Am I correct Tariq? Or is it ok for people to keep bothering admins directly? If they spend time over these small bickerings and conflicts, they might be taking away their valuable time and efforts away from more important Wikipedia related stuff. I am seeing this happen on a regular basis. --Matt57 12:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would prefer that people use Dispute resolution (and I do get bombarded with quite a few comments about Islam-related articles), especially because they think (rather erroneously) that I'm going to automatically be sympathetic to Muslims and Muslim editors. I'll respond to this one anyway, although it might take a bit of time for my response to make it to Talk:Criticism of Islam. --  tariq abjotu  13:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments on my talk page
Hi Matt57, I am also leaving these comments on  ITAQALLAH  's talk page. I have had a look through the various edits, disputes and what you posted on another admin's page. 1) As regards the original question "should illegal edits be reverted systematically or only where it improves the article", my personal understanding of policy is that this is a "grey area". There is a constant argument about this in particular in the context of WP:COI, and also where there is a linkspam campaign. There is no clear consensus and in the end it is a balanced argument (I think most people would accept systematic reversion of a spam bot, but most people would allow an individual to say correct their own date of birth on a page about them without systematically reverting it). In this case I think that the least arguable course of action if the additions were good would have been for Matt57 to reword them in his own words and not remark it as a revert. But perhaps life is too short for this luxury.

2) As regards what then happened between Matt57 and Itaqallah, I think it would be fair to say that the summary given to User_talk:Bbatsell was a bit disingenuous and Matt57 managed to irritate him by it. Also that Matt57 you probably approached Itaqallah's reverts rather aggressively when he seemed happy to discuss them, and shouldn't really have made a block threat (although it was politely worded etc.. so). On these points, depending on the standards of conduct you set yourself, you might consider a small apology. However, all of us probably do this kind of thing on a bad day when things have been frustrating etc so it isn't that bad. Itaqallah perhaps took it more seriously overall than I would tend to, but I guess that's an entitlement. So to summarise "a bit disingenuous, a bit aggressive but not too serious: I would suggest some sort of apology for any offence caused and then we move on". --BozMo talk 20:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bozmo, I had replied on your page as well as Itaq's. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Islam and animals
I admit I don't know much detail on the subject, but I can verify translations of Khomeini's writings.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  21:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Its best if we get interpretations from someone who is impartial to Islam but i'll let you know if i need help, thanks. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Spencer is a little shaky as an RS. Compare, for example, with Serge Trifkovic and Daniel Pipes, who share his POV but have PhD's in history (medieval Islamic history in Pipes' case). Bat Ye'or is also an RS because her historical vision has gained broad acceptance among scholars and her books are published by an academic press. Also she publishes in peer-reviewed history journals and so forth. Arrow740 00:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks! --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User Kirbytime
Isotope23 blocked them for 48 hours. Rotten timing, it appears that you left me the message right as I quit for the day. The best thing with stuff like that is to put it at WP:ANI that way if I'm not about then others are. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

American Thinker
I am conscious on this topic I have for a second time given an opinion against yours. Please don't see that as systematic or more than a coincidence. I continue to think about each issue on its merits and try to be fair. Do ask if I can help with anything --BozMo talk 20:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

DavidYork71
I read the comments you put on his userpage and want to let you know that I admire your attempts to help this person. I, too, thought that David had some serious and genuine contributions. It was sad to see him completely self destruct in the manner that he did. May DavidYork71 rest in peace. --ProtectWomen 05:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Task Force
Hello Matt,

A task force seems exactly the need of the hour, and something I had been hoping would happen. Since I started working on the Islamic articles I have noticed some prevalent views that are not consistent with Wiki policies. Notably:

1) The prohibition against quoting the Koran. The Koran is a primary source. Wiki policy clearly says that primary sources can be used for descriptive purposes. What is prohibited is making interpretations. I have had those promoting the opposing view say things like "to describe is also to interpret". If this standard is to be applied uniformly then all primary sources should disappear from Wiki articles.

2) The prohibition of presenting views of those who are not "renowned scholars" or "PhDs" etc. There is no Wiki policy that states that these are necessities. Anyone who took the trouble of acquiring a degree in Islam would probably be sympathetic to it. This standard blocks out much valid criticism of Islam.

3) Shunting off criticisms of Islam to secondary articles like "Criticism of the Koran". If this standard was applied uniformly there would only be neutral or positive opinions in articles, whereas all criticism would end up in secondary articles. Readers of articles would not get balanced views. Arrow740 is going to say something about this and I am waiting to hear from him, I do respect his opinion.

It is important to note that the above standards are "extra-Wiki", and therefore invalid. There are no special standards for Islam in Wiki. Criticisms that are referenced and from RS (defined according to Wiki, and not some extra-Wiki standard) are entitled to be added to articles. If other editors wish they can add material that refutes the criticism. Criticism cannot be removed simply because some editors sympathetic to Islam wish to hide it from the public.

It is a noble goal to bring to the public relevant and true information about this very important topic of our times, and I wish the task force every success.

Best Regards,

NN 16:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This is mnagi85. I received a threat from you saying this: "Thirded. If you continue doing this, you'll be blocked." Two things, learn some proper english before you speak to me. And two, I do not know who you think you are, but I have obviously stopped making such changes, and I have only focused on changes that MUST be made (minor, not whole sections). So I take this threat as if you haven't said anything to me, because I believe I have the right to edit. Hence the term "edit" at the top of every section. And it is not like I am editing with wrong information or vandalizing, I am simply making the proper changes that are true, unlike some opinionated answers and information that was originally there. Thank you.

hello
please justify your removal of the POV tag, despite the presence of a balance dispute on talk. also justify on what basis you restored a copyrighted image into the article that is usable under fair use guidelines, which it currently does not meet in that article.  ITAQALLAH  01:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Re-inserted, it was an overlook on my part. thanks. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Please dont call it "Editorial disagreement". Clearly there was no consensus." - quite right, there was no consensus for the move you made. just a polite tip: you need to substantiate your assertions, so that it facilitates dialogue as opposed to back-and-forth claims and counter-claims. you stated: "Its only mission is to improve articles of a certain theme, i.e. articles which contain controversy related to Islam." - yes, that is a mission focusing on topic, not article status. you have included a large number of articles not fulfilling this criteria, and thus the justified concern of potential misuse.  ITAQALLAH   23:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the "misuse"? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Userpage
Matt57, I have removed the hadith from your userpage, for it is now being used as an excuse for others to troll. Please take note of this dynamic: we are not in a race to the bottom.Proabivouac 23:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not responsible for actions of other users. People are putting up quotations from religious sources everywhere on Wikipedia, I'm not the only one. Please dont remove it again. Policies must be applied uniformly. thanks. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because other people violate Wikipedia's guidelines doesn't mean you have the right to violate the guidelines too. Stop being a baby.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  00:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirby, NPA.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you consider that an attack, then there is no possible way I can converse with you without attacking you. Toodles.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  06:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

List of terrorist organisation outlawed in Australia
Here it is, Gnangarra 14:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Breasts in the Qu'ran
I went and read those references, again, and didn't see any mention of breasts. If you want to add voluptuous, that's fine, but voluptuous means voluptuous, itself a rather cloudy term filled with all sorts of different connotations, and not "large-breasted". I could understand if you were trying to modernize the connotation, but that seems a little too original-research-ish and I for one tend toward conservatism when it comes to sensitive subjects. Also, I don't know what Kawaib means, but didn't see it while looking through the citations (Which, by the way, are a little messy, I noticed that for the first two it wasn't the actual line cited but, rather, later on when the support for the statement is made--I hope you'll make these a little more tidy when you make your changes). Somehow I've fallen into these Islamic articles, which are all very much more contentious than my regular diet (Ancient China and climatology and such) and I so I'd like to point out that my criticism is meant purely from a lay perspective. Elijahmeeks 03:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Read the Quran"? Dude, what the hell is wrong with you?  Snide comments in a revert, followed up by a "Whoops, the guy is right, my citations suck" edit without leaving me a note saying, oh, I don't know, "Whoops, sorry about the snide comments, you're right, my citations suck."  I can only assume, since you've been so lacking in any explanation, wahaib means cup which is a metaphor for breast, in which case, you're citing the wrong source, since your source says they'll be rewarded with "full cups".  What you're doing, by citing that and calling it "big breasts" is original research.  Cite the article or other scholarly work wherein a learned person writes, "And by 'full cups' is meant 'big breasts."  That's how citations work.  Oh, and the difference between my first response and this one--which treats you like a jerk--is how civility works.  When people lack civility, they tend to get responses without civility.  Maybe, if you respond to my uncivil response with a civil response acknowledging that, yes, I have every right to be a little cheesed off with you, we can fix this.  Elijahmeeks 03:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Quoting religions texts
Please read this: - it is okay to quote religious texts directly. Infact you and other people do it all the time. This is with regards to the article for Quran and sex with female captives.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * These are primary sources. --Aminz 15:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out, its perfectly acceptable to quote from primary sources. You've also agreed with it (I'm assuming this after you said its ok). --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. ROASTY TOAST  20:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did some mistakes while putting an AfD there, I've restored the article. I'll put a notability tag in it again later sometime. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User page
Please see WP:USER and WP:ANI. Wikipedia is not a weblog or a free web host. Please use What can I have on my user page? as your guide. Thank you. -- Avi 15:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is best to accept the judgement of neutral outsiders here. Arrow740 16:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that you removed your message you had posted on my talk page earlier yesetrday. Thanks for your understanding and i really appreciate it. Happy editing. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  12:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We all should keep an eye on users who violate WP:User and act accordingly and fairly.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Please do not waste my User Talk page space with false comments and patronization. Clearly there were many people on the topic who agreed with that all the inforamtion should be merged into the main article... so it was clearly not a one way argument, had i had already discussed it with enough people to make it necesary. It may have been kept, but i do not require your childish forms of gloating on my talk page... i do this for improvement of the site not personal reasons, thankyou -- Jimmi Hugh 21:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All I asked you is to discuss a deletion before you AfD an article because some of your your recent deletion nominations were on very popular articles and were almost fully been rejected by the community (as in, everyone said to Keep). If you want to improve the Wikipedia, you should also consider getting consensus from other editors. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I advise you read back through all those Afd's... despite the fact it is not a vote, it is simply a way of making sure policy is fully discussed, all my recently requested have at least equal force from both sides, aside from the timeline article, which did have numerous reasons for merger, making it a valid nomination. --Jimmi Hugh 01:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There were 6 Merges and 0 deletes and all the rest were keeps so it was a bad judgement to AfD it. You could have recommended to merge it, not delete. If you had asked on the talk page whether the article should be deleted, you'd have known that this was the opinion. You have to know: this is an important event and people are visiting these pages very frequently. They get to the page and see this huge grey template saying this page is considered being deleted. That unnerves people (especially when no one can understand why this page should be deleted). Next time get consensus. Remember, 6 merges, 0 deletions and everything else was like 30 keeps or something so clearly, you're not seeing something that people are, or vice versa. Work together with the editors. Also please use correct summaries, e.g. you did not when you AfD'd various articles. I see now you're discussing on the talk page of the article, thats good.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Again
I appreciate your support and got a laugh about the 72 virgins AfD... lol--ProtectWomen 00:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

DHANMONDI
Hi I got your message Thanks for your support I am a new user so I have many confusion regarding many rules such as if i put link that oppose dr.zakir they send warning message to me and delete the link this is the mind set of muslim people how can i prevent it ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dhanmondi (talk • contribs) 07:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Talk:Islam
Prehaps you'd like to offer your two cents to this discussion?--Sefringle 04:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

List of converts to Christianity dilemma
Have I gone completely insane?

On the 'List of converts to Christianity' page, a user named Bus Stop removed Bob Dylan, citing a lack of a reliable source. With a simple Google search, I found a second source affirming his conversion. Removed again, for the same reason. I add a few more sources. Same story. And now that I have supplied 9 separate sources for Bob Dylan's conversion (including Bobdylan.com), he again removes Bob Dylan from the list for the same reason. 9 sources.

Now, it is his view that the conversion was just an 'artist' thing, and that there was no sincerity so it. I don't care either way, and if he would provide sources for it, we could add that his sincerity in conversion is disputed. Yet he simply continues to remove Bob Dylan from the list as if the rest of the world is insane, and even websites relaying his conversion story, reasons behind his conversion, and a personal interview which references his conversion are simply insufficient for his criteria of 'reliability'.

Are my sources sufficient? I'm curious, because they seem reasonably reliable, and I doubt there is anyone on these conversion lists which requires 9 sources.

It's amazing that some users don't seem to grasp that we rely on what the sources themselves say, and not their personal interpretation of the information within them.--C.Logan 03:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources are required. Most of the sources provided are Christian sources, or they are secondary sources. They are mired in the agenda of proselytizing. Conversion is not accomplished by record albums and momentary and private conversations with a priest. Most importantly we have no public formal ritual or ceremony. We do not have any accounting of an actual occasion marking the conversion by an unbiased commentator. Bob Dylan's own very often used imagery involving Jesus and Christianity is not evidence of conversion. Conversion should be understood to involve something concrete, otherwise conversion is meaningless, and anyone, under any circumstances, can be said to have converted. He was born a Jew and firm evidence should be required to dislodge him from that status, even temporarily. Not the fact that somebody said something in an offhand sort of way or that Gospel music was his passion during this time. Furthermore the period in question did not last very long. He was shortly into other musical styles and all sightings of "Christian" involvement quickly drop off. There are accountings of his re-involvement with Jewish rituals such as attending upon regularly recurring holidays of the Jewish calendar, since that time. And since that time he has moved on stylistically from Gospel music to other compositional styles, metamorphosing correspondingly into other personas. There is really no concrete evidence of conversion -- nothing even close. Bob Dylan is a superstar. Tons of ink are spilled constantly. Metaphors get interpreted as facts, and that is how you have misinformation. Bus stop 05:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've detailed the sources on the talk page, so that they can be quickly assessed. I am unaware that a site's bias instantly makes it unreliable. Many of the converts on List of Muslim converts cite pro-Islam websites, and I have no complaints. What reason do we have to assume that these sites are unreliable, or that they are fabricating things? Never mind the fact that Bob Dylan's conversion was referenced in the 9 sources I have presented, with several of these sources going into great detail over the actual history of it. A site's affiliation with a religion or a party does not guarantee that the source will intentionally misrepresent information to further the beliefs of the site's administrators. If a claim is to be made against his conversion, then sources for that must be cited first and foremost. --C.Logan 07:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hassam Abdo
Hey, Matt, I love the Flying Spaghetti Monster, too. I just noticed we've ended up on opposite sides on a few of these debates, and I wanted to drop you a note pointing out some area where we agree and can be consensusized. Sometimes we get blinded to others' arguments when we've been exposed to too much partisanship, but I'm an optimist of the Jeffersonian mold, and I think we're all trying to accomplish the same thing here. Except for those damn Hamiltonians, they must be stopped. Elijahmeeks 23:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So, uh, where's my loyalty, then? Shang Dynasty or Zhou?  I'd also be curious to know why you think I shouldn't like the FSM?  I suppose you demand that there be a right side and a wrong side to the entire world, and that two rational people could not possibly disagree on things.  Is it because I don't like userboxes?  Elijahmeeks 02:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think all of my edits demonstrate an appreciation for rational skepticism. You should spend more time and diversify your interests.  Maybe look into soil hydrology, or Ancient Mesopotamian Marriage Law.  When you focus too much on one subject, especially if it's from a critical and embattled point-of-view, you tend to lose perspective.  Branch out, it's good for you.  These Islam articles are already too nettled and pedantic, I'd hate to create more, especially since we don't even have separate pages for the Eastern and Western Zhou Dynasties.  Watch out for the abyss, it stares back. Elijahmeeks 05:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your input...
...On the good ol' List of notable converts to Christianity talk page, the debate still rages. As very sufficient, published sources have now been presented, the debate is focused on whether or not Bob should be included on the List.

As far as I'm concerned, the criterion for inclusion is conversion, at any point in the entry's life, regardless of their later faith. The list has a disclaimer at the top for this, explaining that the list is of people who have once converted- it is not guarantee of continued faith. Additionally, Bob's own entry states that he has apparently returned to Judaism (which is support by sources that neither Bus stop nor Cleo have yet shown me, but I'll take their word on it).

The fact that a person converts is extremely noteworthy, and even moreso in Bob's case, considering his musical shift and the controversy which followed. He is a notable convert. His conversion is notable.

However, Bus stop doesn't see it this way. He thinks everyone on my (our?) side of the fence is endorsing Christianity and violating WP:SOAP. This is his main argument. He's gone on a brief tirade about the history of relations of Judaism and Christianity, politically and theologically, and thus further made clear his bias with statements such as, "All the disclaimers in the world do not counteract putting a Jew on a list of Christians." Make your own assessment of that.

As I said on the above mentioned talk page, I feel that he's rejecting our argument not because of what we say but because of why we say it. He believes that the list is merely a tool for endorsing Christianity, and that the inclusion of Bob Dylan is supposed to represent some sort of Christian triumph. This is what I've gathered; read it for yourself. I don't mean to villainize him, but I'm being honest while considering both his arguments and his extra comments.

Anyway, the link at the top of this comment links directly to the 'Request for comment" section of the talk page, where Bus stop and I have been most recently exchanging words. Please feel free to contribute. I'd appreciate a fresh opinion in the mix, if you have the time.--C.Logan 15:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I dont have much knowledge of this issue so I dont know if I can say something of use in the complex discussion going on there now. I'd suggest asking cleo evidence for his statement "To label a practicing Jew as a "convert to Christianity" is potentially libellous.". I hope there's a resolution for this. Maybe a new section "disputed/unconfirmed converts" could be made. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we've already confirmed that he converted- at least according two (and more I haven't explicitly transcribed) published, widely-known biographies.


 * The question is inclusion on the list. The article isn't exclusive to current Christians; it is intended for notable people who have converted at some point in their life. The introductory paragraph makes it clear that the list records conversions, not continued belief. It's undeniable that Dylan's conversion is notable. I mean, books and documentaries have been made about his conversion and the musical changes and behavior that followed.


 * List of vegans (often used as an example because it's at the top of my memory) has a similar criterion. Any notable person who has practiced veganism is included in the lest, whether or not they still adhere to the diet. Lists like these can be useful references.


 * Bus stop seems to believe that we are insiduously proselytizing by putting an iconic Jew on the list (although it would make no sense that someone would use a celebrity as an endorsement when that celebrity doesn't even practice Christianity anymore; obviously, something was lacking). He seems to turn the debate into a religious issue, and often brings the history of Jews and Christians into the picture. The above quotes are examples of this.


 * I don't want to fill your page with a summary- you can always read the page if you'd like to know. If you're busy, then don't worry about it. I don't feel like Bus stop has much left to argue about, and it's beginning to get repetitive. Let's hope this argument runs out of steam soon. --C.Logan 03:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep at it, if he still doesnt budge, you can go for an RfC or something. If you have RS for what you want to say and he doesnt, then he doesnt have anything.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that Bus stop has nominated the article for deletion. It's now listed on the Afd page.

Please, if you haven't yet, take a look at the AFD page. I've tried to counter Bus stop's misrepresentation of the argument (he's said that we are currently using "Flimsy sources", so I went along and copied and pasted the 14 sources currently listed for Bob Dylan's entry so that anyone viewing can clearly determine what is "flimsy"). I somehow doubt that Bus stop even stopped to notice that I've had 2 respected biographies at the top of the ref list for days now, and I just added another one (the text of which I've transcribed here). Matt, if you can help in any way, it would be appreciated. --C.Logan 08:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I left a Keep there. I had to face the same kind of thing on List of former Muslims. See if you can do an RfC after the AfD debate is closed (the article will be a keep most definitely), because it doesnt look like he's going to give up.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the kind words at Talk:Black Stone. I've enjoyed working on the article, and it's actually very satisfying to work on something where there's a clear consensus. Now if I could just have the same luxury at Talk:Matt Sanchez, heh... --Elonka 01:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. The article looks very nice now. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 12:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:EL
WP:EL says "one should avoid...Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources."

Thus the links must be reliable. Please undo your reverts, or I will.Bless sins 23:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I am not responsible for cleaning up wikipedia, anymore than you are. Thus you can't criticize me for not hunting down every single unreliable source on Banu Qurayza.
 * Secondly, the four links that I left behind are attributed to PBS, Andrew Bostom, Mubarakpuri, and Arafat. Atleast the links have a known author, and two (PBS and Mubarakpuri) seem to be reliable.
 * Thirdly, incase you are thinking that my removal was biased - it wasn't. I removed anti-Muslim links as well as a pro-Muslim link (Did Muhammad betray the Banu Quraiza?).Bless sins 00:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The suggestion you left on WP:EL had some positive and negative responses. From what I see the negative stance (that unreliable links should not be used) prevailed. I will now make my changes on the article.Bless sins 21:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

verification
hello, could you verify the accuracy of an e-mail attributed to you recently on ANI? thanks  ITAQALLAH   15:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For what purpose are you trying to get the verification for? Emails are not a part of Wikipedia in any case. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, the link you gave for where the User claimed that I had 'harrassed' him, is the same link where 2 sections below, he was blocked that same night for trolling and requesting Child Porn. Does that explain his allegation of "stalking" and "harrassment"? Your approval and indirect support of this user is distasteful. He has been blocked 2 times for trolling. Even admins have called him a troll.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * i'm just asking you to verify the accuracy of what was attributed to you, that's all.  ITAQALLAH   16:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I will refrain from responding to the question as external emails are not a part of Wikipedia. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

re: supreme leader
They were already linked under "incumbents", so I removed them to make see also; more concise. please feel free to put them back if you disagree.--Gerash77 19:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Kindly see the section right above see also titled incumbents as mentioned above--Gerash77 19:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime's talk page
Hi Matt,

In your recent revert of Kirbytime's talk page, your comment was "Kirbytime, do not take out Block warnings from your talk page". Is there a policy which states that one should not remove Block warnings from their own talk page? AFAIK, it is perfectly acceptable to remove such (or any) material from your own talk page. Clarification appreciated.

Thanks. → AA (talk • contribs) — 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)