User talk:Merzbow/Archive4

Islam's talk page
I have left a note on the Islam's talk page. Please take a look at it. --Aminz 06:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * see this. i can only assume that Islam has been promoted to FA status. ^_^ ITAQALLAH   19:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If so, you have no idea how much that would make my day. - Merzbow 19:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * looks like it. well done! ITAQALLAH   19:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * what do you think about going for WP:TFA/R? ITAQALLAH   21:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, I was just looking at that when I got your message. Definitely looks like a good idea. We'll need to find a suitable picture, and it appears that a trimmed version of the lead may be necessary. - Merzbow 21:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * a few of the noms i looked at don't incorporate the whole lead, so yeah i think we can propose a trimmed version. i have been thinking about a suitable pic, what about that plaque with the shahadah on it (or the pic of Muslims performing salah? or one of the mosque pics?) ITAQALLAH   21:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure how it might look shrunken down, however. Plus I'm not sure it's recognizable enough to the layman as having to do with Islam; remember, there is no room for captions. Might be worth trawling around Commons looking for something just right. A salah or mosque pic might work, those are very recognizable symbols of Islam. - Merzbow 21:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work, both of you.Proabivouac 21:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * a mosque may be a bit repetitive, because the only other Islam related FA to appear on the main page (to my knowledge) was Mosque, which naturally had a mosque as the image. with that in mind.. i think the salah img would be a good idea, unless a better alternative can be found. ITAQALLAH   21:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. - Merzbow 22:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

proposal
 Islam (Arabic: ) is a monotheistic religion originating with the teachings of Muhammad, a 7th century Arab religious and political figure. The word Islam means "submission", or the total surrender of one's self to God (Arabic: الله, Allāh). Islam's adherents are known as "Muslims", meaning "one who submits (to God)". There are between 900 million and 1.3 billion Muslims, making Islam the second-largest religion in the world after Christianity. Muslims believe that God revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, God's final prophet, and regard the Qur'an and the Sunnah (the words and deeds of Muhammad) as the fundamental sources of Islam.

Islam includes many religious practices. Adherents are required to observe the Five Pillars of Islam, which are five duties that unite Muslims into a community. In addition to the Five Pillars, Islamic law (Sharia) has developed a tradition of rulings that touch on virtually all aspects of life and society. Almost all Muslims belong to one of two major denominations, the Sunni and Shi'a; roughly 85% of Muslims are Sunni and 15% are Shi'a. Only about 20% of Muslims come from Arab countries. (More...) -- still need a trim? ITAQALLAH  22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I modified the above, trimming some of the details at the end. I also increased the picture size a bit. - Merzbow 22:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Today's featured article/requests. ITAQALLAH   23:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Could be quite a while before it makes it to the main page, but hopefully not so long given the importance of this article. - Merzbow 23:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Award

 * Thanks man. Thanks for you efforts on the article as well. - Merzbow 03:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive
This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :GAReview underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sock Review?
I'm just looking for your opinion here. There's a new user named Abureem who has a very confrontational style, is interested in defending Wahhabism just like His excellency (also uses the word "pejorative" like H.E.). Abureem referred to people as bigots and islamophobes in a similar manner to H.E. and also happily broke 3RR just as the H.E. puppets do. What do you think? Should I bring another checkuser request? or just keep an eye on this one? --ProtectWomen 07:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, that's him. Fire up the CheckUser. - Merzbow 08:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * These appear to me as well to be the same user.Proabivouac 08:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Reported. Thanks :) --ProtectWomen 09:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still not convinced the two are not related. Any other thoughts? Did H.E. have any little proteges running around? --ProtectWomen 04:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's him. He's probably on vacation or is using a different ISP. - Merzbow 05:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Tech Tower / Featured article candidates/Tech Tower update
You said:
 * Comment I was a peer reviewer for this article; it's very close, but the one remaining issue I have is the lack of citations for some paragraphs (it should be obvious which; essentially any that do not sport a trailing footnote). Once addressed I will be happy to support. - Merzbow 06:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to remedy those problems. As soon as it is convenient to you, would you mind having another look at the article? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Merkey threads
Merzbow (and all who watchlist this page,) this will no doubt seem a strange message from me. I have uncovered an active and longstanding conspiracy against a real person, Jeffrey Merkey. His edits are broadly acknowledged as problematic, but what I am discovering here disturbs me far more than any problem edit: it is the organized subversion of Wikipedia, coordinated on external fora, for the harassment and libel of targeted individuals. IRC action is afoot, so I'm told, so who knows what will happen to my account. I solicit your involvement, and that of anyone who watchlists your page. If I sound a little freaked out by all this, it's because I am. See WP:AN, WP:AN.Proabivouac 10:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ouch, what a mess. My opinion of SCO is not fit to be printed here but any sort of harassment is clearly out of line (from both sides). - Merzbow 18:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Sufism
Salam. I did my best in this case. but I can't find the primary source. Can we use secondary sources.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 16:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, as long as the author is reliable. - Merzbow 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

otrs
Honestly, I don't know the details - I'm not an OTRS member. I'm running a semi-bot job for User:Zscout370. My impression is that it is a private matter that he won't be able to discuss either. CMummert · talk 02:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what I figured... no problem. - Merzbow 02:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest Grandia01 edit
Thanks for helping keep this relentless silliness in check. If history is any guide, we will have to deal with this for the next few weeks before he moves onto something else. Perhaps I am in an unusually light mood, but for whatever reason in this diff I find amusement:Proabivouac 07:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh... he needs to improve his English, if only to be able to insult better. - Merzbow 07:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternative music WikiProject newsletter
Delivered by CloudNine 11:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Bat Ye'or
Hello Merzbow,

I'm trying to understand your perspective on the issue. Can you please quote a specific part o a wiki policy that suggests that Imad Ahmed in not reliable enough to be included?Bless sins 12:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * He is not a professor, and we have enough criticism already from professors there is no need to add this guy. - Merzbow 17:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN
You might find something of interest in this thread.Proabivouac 05:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw that. Given that this individual continues to rant and attack on his talk page, I think good faith can be safely unassumed regardless of what the Foundation is doing. - Merzbow 05:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They also cut short the community ban discussion.Proabivouac 05:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Karmichael Hunt
Could you peer review Karmichael Hunt? It would be much appreciated.

Article - Karmichael Hunt Peer review - Peer review/Karmichael Hunt

Thanks. SpecialWindler 01:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the comments SpecialWindler 03:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Bungle
Thanks heaps for casting your eye over Mr. Bungle and sorry about the confusion re Mr. Bungle/user:Mr Bungle, I didn't really think that one through when signing up :) Anyway I really appreciate your work and hope to have a good go at implementing your suggestions in the next couple of days, cheers - Mr Bungle |  talk  09:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, keep me updated. - Merzbow 20:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I had a go at implementing your suggestions into the article (most anyway, it’s kind of difficult to objectively copyedit stuff you’ve written yourself), I had a couple of queries which I have placed on the Peer review/Mr. Bungle/archive1 page and was hoping if you had a spare second you could have a quick look and tell me what you think, thanks again - Mr Bungle | talk  04:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sargis Bahirâ
An article that you have been involved in editing, Sargis Bahirâ, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Sargis Bahirâ. Thank you. -- Merope 18:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music
I really appreciate your work on Stereolab and am wondering if you have plans to work intensively on other pages in the scope of the project anytime soon. I see from your user page you like Sonic Youth and gothic rock, but are there any other alt-rock topics that might interest you enough to aim for FA status? On a smaller scale, feel free to drop by the project's Collaboration of the Week to vote on future projects and possibly lend a hand in sprucing them up. Also, feel free to ask me for help if you ever need it, and I'll try my best to assist you. WesleyDodds 05:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I do intend to work on more articles in the area. It's certainly a much less stress-inducing area of the encyclopedia than Islam-related articles. Sonic Youth definitely should be upgraded to an FA at some point, maybe that could be a project. - Merzbow 06:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it won't be as stress-inducing as working on Islam-related articles, but you can still run into problems. The main difference is the ones on alt-rock articles at their most severe are long debates about a band's genre or wrangling about fair-use. Still, the likelihood of being able to work on a page all by yourself in peace is much greater (then again, there's a chance there might not be enough people helping you or that reliable sources to draw form are slim). We collaborated on Sonic Youth a few months back; everything up till 1990 in the history is more or less fine, but everything after that still needs work. There's a few more citations I can pull from the Azerrad book, and I've got a few article about the band laying around, so when you need them in the future, just give me a holler. WesleyDodds 06:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

FAC: Supernature (Goldfrapp album)
I have gone through the article and have fixed citations and looked into the people who wrote them. Could you please take a look at the page again when you have time? Thanks :) -- Underneath-it-All 21:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Islamophobia
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Islamophobia, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. ITAQALLAH   20:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see: Requests_for_mediation/Islamophobia. ITAQALLAH   14:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:We're gonna be on the main page
Salam. As I had suggested that would be better to be on the main page in a especial day like Eid ul-Fitr. Can you please change the date. I mean 13 October 2007 is a better choice. If another article has been chosen for that day, we can ask Raul to substitute.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that would be celebratory. Arrow740 04:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, a lot of requests for special days fail. I think we're lucky just to have a day so soon after FA. - Merzbow 04:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 12:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

Avant Rock
I was at my library the other day and found this book called Avant Rock (didn't catch the author's name, but I think I saw the book listed on Amazon.com once). There's about a three-page chapter on Stereolab in it that discusses their perceived Marxist leanings and covers some musical aspects. Thought you might want to try and look that one up. If you can't find it easily, let me know and I can always check it out myself. WesleyDodds 04:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out. Found it on Amazon. Love this quote from the first Amazon review: "While Avant Rock should get some credit for reminding us that generally ignored "fringe" artists such as Merzbow and Stereolab are nonetheless vital agents in the evolution of rock music..." - Merzbow 05:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: comment
Man, I didn't even think of that! Thanks for the heads up. And to clarify, i'm the only person that edits, a good friend of mine and sometimes another friend of ours often translate stuff for me and look things up. The editing itself is all done by me, so it is my account. You think I should clarify that on the talk page for Islam? MezzoMezzo 04:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine then. It's probably a good idea to clarify this on the talk page also. - Merzbow 05:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Ultramarine 23:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Aisha
Hi Merzbow,

If you could help in this dispute of mine with Arrow and Proab, I would be thankful (of course if you have time :) ). Thanks --Aminz 08:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the third person you have solicited. I think it's a bit much. Why don't you ask Matt or Karl Meier's opinion? Arrow740 08:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music June 2007 Newsletter
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 00:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC).

Islam - Other religions
Here is my idea:

The current section is not a summary of Dhimmi article. As you know, we can easily fill the article with the positive points to balance it but the article will get bloated. I still believe that a short fair summary can be the following:

"Jews and Christians living in Muslim lands had the status of dhimmi and were allowed to "practice their religion, subject to certain conditions, and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy".[90] They were guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying tribute (jizya) and acknowledging Muslim supremacy. Dhimmis were subject to legal restrictions such as prohibitions against bearing arms or bans against giving testimony in court in cases involving Muslims.[91]"

My idea is that we can have one paragraph on scriptural religions and one on others.

This previous version was good I believe. It is short and unbiased.

We can also leave some space for other related stuff such as Islam_and_Judaism  in that section.

Merzbow, please let me know what you think. Thanks --Aminz 07:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * At the moment I don't have strong feelings one way or another about the section. - Merzbow 07:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers, --Aminz 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Respect between family members
Hi Merzbow,

Here is what the source says:

"The basic unit of Islamic society. In Arabic, ahl or aila is a comperhensive term that may include grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins on both sides of the family. The Qur'an enjoins mutual respect and responsibility between spouses and among family members. Spouses and children have duties and rights protected by law."

Please self-revert. Thanks --Aminz 03:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Which source? Itaq said on talk he couldn't find that word. Anyways, if you want that in, then I think make sense to add back in some of Beit Or's material for balance, because the inferiority of women is also clearly sourced. - Merzbow 03:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am quoting "Oxford Dictionary of Islam". Which are Beit Or's material? --Aminz 03:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The main reason that sentence should be removed is because it is insipid and uninformative. Reading it, one learns basically nothing about Islam. Respect for family members is valued by almost every society and religion. I found no such analogous sentence in Judaism, for example. Confucianism has this, but that's much more specific and is a central doctrine of the philosophy.Proabivouac 03:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. --Aminz 03:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Divorce
Hi Merzbow,

Re:, I have two points:


 * The articles in the Oxford Dictionary of Islam are not signed. They are not all written by Esposito. At the introduction, there is a long list of contributors with their credentials.


 * If the Oxford Dictionary of Islam says something unconditionally, then it is a notable POV.


 * The same source also says: "Tunisia rendered polygony illegal on Islamic grounds and established equal rights for men and women in divorce"

In any case, I don't feel the argument "the Oxford Dictionary of Islam's view is written by Esposito " is correct as the author is not specified; and even if this is the case, Esposito wouldn't write a non-notable view of his in the Oxford Dictionary of Islam.

Please let me know what you think. --Aminz 08:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't get into reporting on whether this or that authority thinks something is "un-Qur'anic" in this article. I have Maududi's books, and I'm sure I could provide competing quotes from there supporting the traditional Islamic divorce laws. Let's stick to what's currently accepted in Islamic law and what most Muslims do. If there are notable reform efforts, we should mention that. - Merzbow 17:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. The matter of fact is that the modern views are diverse. Why shouldn't we report them? We have already mentioned Maududi's POV. So, there is no need for finding competing quotes. What we need is mentioning other POVs. --Aminz 21:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe I have shown that the other POV is also notable. --Aminz 21:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Read what he posted again. Arrow740 21:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article does not quote from Maududi. It reports on Islamic law as it is currently interpreted. We can give a thousand quotes from a dozen sources giving their personal opinions if this or that is Qur'anic. We don't want to go there unless we want to turn this article into a quote-farm and a mess. - Merzbow 21:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merzbow, I can't honestly understand why you think this shouldn't be mentioned. Here is my question: Do you believe "The Oxford Dictionary of Islam + A Muslim country's understanding" can not make up a notable minority view? --Aminz 21:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless it can be shown the "Oxford Dictionary of Islam" is seen by millions of Muslims as a reliable source for theological direction, it's not a notable minority view. Maududi's commentary is followed by millions of Muslims, in contrast. The section is specifically not reporting on outside views of Muslim theology (which is what criticism sections, for example, do), it is reporting on what Muslims themselves believe and do. - Merzbow 21:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the outside views that are academic could be mentioned (of course not unreliable ones). What about Tunisia? It is a country anyways. --Aminz 22:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Oxford Dictionary is not an Islamic theological authority, so it has no mandate to issue theological rulings. It is certainly acceptable as a source for reporting on what actual Muslim jurists believe (or what Muslim reformers believe), but not as an originating source for theology. I could see it being quoted in an "outside views" section of a Muslim family life article, but it just seems ridiculous to say something like "The consensus of Islamic law over 1400 years is X, but the Oxford Dictionary of Islam says that Islamic law is all wrong and the Qur'an really says Y"; the latter part should explicitly be set off as an outside view. - Merzbow 22:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, this kind of material "'According to the Oxford Dictionary of Islam, this is in violation of Quranic teaching and is one of the subjects of modern reform efforts." is inappropriate. This is exactly the sort of caveat for which you've become famous. It's to the point where we may as well add "Aminznotes" to the foot of every paragraph, where you can explain why what the reader has just learned is misleading, inauthentic, might not have really happened, etc. Please remember that we're only here to describe subjects, not judge them or change them. It's obvious that you have heartfelt differences with mainstream Islamic doctrines and traditions, and that's fine, but you will feel less stress if you can accept that mainspace won't always reflect your opinions.Proabivouac 22:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

For something a little lighter to consider . ..
Could you take a look at R.E.M. (band)? We spent a week collarborating on it and now it's at GAC. It's just I've spent so much time staring at the page for the last two week I think I need another set of eyes to go over it. Thanks. WesleyDodds 08:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Could these comments be from the same person?
Dear Merzbow,

This completely blows my mind. I see you arguing above that "[The Oxford Dictionary of Islam] is certainly acceptable as a source for reporting on what actual Muslim jurists believe (or what Muslim reformers believe), but not as an originating source for theology," yet you want us to believe at Islam in the United States that you actually think a columnist's unattributable editorial opinion about a supposed demographic estimate should be taken as reliable? Clearly you are capable not only of logical, but rather sophisticated understandings of source materials so what gives? Columns are not fact checked because they are the opinions of the columnists and not of the paper--even editorials are opinions and not factual news coverage. Cheers.PelleSmith 22:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, the article now attributes the claim to the columnist, so the reader can judge for themselves the credibility of the source. But I don't think you're clear on the difference between statements of opinion and statements about facts. A columnist claiming a demographical number in an editorial as a fact produced by a study he read is making a statement about a fact, which can be fact-checked. Again, I have no reason to believe such statements are not fact-checked. In fact, it's ludicrous to not believe so, because to not do so would be to expose the publisher to liability if a columnist makes a negative statement of fact about somebody which turns out not to be true. - Merzbow 22:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The columnist has not attributed this estimate to "a study he read" at all--you are completely fabricating that point. By this I don't just mean that he hasn't named the study, but he hasn't even claimed the estimate came from a study, or even from a or many human beings for that matter.  The very point here is that the editor has not made any stament of fact other than that an estimate exists stating X.  He would not be lying if he made up the estimate himself based upon his gut feeling.  The paper has no liablity here at all.  So what are you even arguing about?PelleSmith 22:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And by the way, I think you would find the Washington Post quite upset if you attributed the actual factuality of that estimate to their authority.PelleSmith 23:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He said "one estimate places the number of Muslim converts in prison above 250,000". That is a statement of fact. A fact-checker at the newspaper can legitimately ask him to produce the source of the estimate. Anyways, this discussion is indeed moot, because even if I accepted your incorrect argument that this is a statement of opinion, we are allowed to mention the opinions of reliable sources in articles with attribution. - Merzbow 23:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What is factual or not factual about the columnists statement is, again, that an estimate stating so exists, and not that the estimate itself is true. You are assuming quite without warrant that a fact-checker at the paper asked him to produce this source, and that the fact-checker then was satisfied (or even knew what to be satisfied with).  For instance, the columnist may well have gotten his estimate from an other columnist.  I would like to point out again that the way it is written gives a lot of leeway to the accuracy of the estimate since the columnist has pretty much expressly eschewed any such claim to accuracy.  In the end what we are allowed to do, and what produces informative statements are quite different things.  What is the point of throwing around statistics that cannot be verified?  It is up to us to use attributable, reliable, and "EXPERT" sources for these things.  The guidelines are pretty clear on this.  The fact that "we are allowed" to do what you wish to do, by the way, is why I changed the language for accuracy--you know what you so happily called "poisoning the well."  So that there would be no false assumption about the source.  It is from a column, and the source (which even you are falsely assuming is a study of some kind) is not attributed.  Again I fail to see what you are actually arguing about.PelleSmith 23:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The editors we deserve
Can you believe this? Proabivouac 07:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think an RFCU is in order. The IPs are quite obviously Grandia, the justification for the RFCU is clear - the editor is using IPs to avoid scrutiny for disruptive behavior (code letter G or A). - Merzbow 07:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're being checkusered.Proabivouac 00:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Utterly pathetic. - Merzbow 02:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Link for Com ban for Kirbytime
Hi Merz, about your comment here, do you have the link for Kirbytime's community ban? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It was agreed to in that ANI thread that you started about him posting the DVD number. You'll have to dig through ANI archives to find it. - Merzbow 16:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Got it. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for your take
Hey Merzbow, I hope you're doing alright man. I hate to be a bother but I was wondering if you could throw in your two cents on something. I wanted to see if I could get some third party opinions to chime in on this.

On the page for Bin Baz, some anonymous users were making some edits that I felt were inappropriate; the same set of users (the same user or group of users was using multiple IP addresses on this one) were also making edits to Albani that I also felt were inappropriate. When I reverted them and explained why on the talk page, User:Chubeat8 created his account to argue his case, he apparently being at least one of the anonymous users. He made some more additions which, as you can see from the Bin Baz talk page, were very dubious; all of them containing original research and most of them very obviously misquoting the guy. I did a point by point breakdown of all his edits on the talk page. User:Swapant showed up soon after, arguing the same points and also occasionally editing from a similar IP address up in the Montreal area. User:Uss-cool is the latest one of their friends to join, all of them having only contributed to these two articles. I tried to assume good faith but they've really worn that thin; it seems like a group of friends just up and decided to bum rush the talk page when I started quoting various Wikpedia policies and behavioral guidelines.

Maybe i'm out of line, which is why i'm asking you to take a look, especially at the Bin Baz talk page. I remember you being very easy to work with and pretty analytical about this kind of stuff. MezzoMezzo 18:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While it does seem like there may be sock/meatpuppetry going on with those users, I don't understand why you deleted this material: . It's certainly not vandalism (no good-faith edit is vandalism), and seems well-sourced and relevant. Certainly it needs copyediting. - Merzbow 19:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For that specific one, I have some responses on the talk page but in short, there were three sections. The birthday section had an adequate source but he didn't prove why it was controversial or relevant; it was one of many fatwas Bin Baz made and offhand I can name you about two dozen living Muslim scholars that have made the same ruling.  For monotheism and polytheism, as I pointed out on the talk page, they misquoted him as their addition to the article is not what was in the sources.  As for takfir, they straight up lied - Bin Baz never declared Qadiri Sufis or all Shia to not be Muslims, and the references again don't support that.


 * Sorry to be taking up so much space here...lol. But all my issues with that edit are discussed on the talk page there.  Either way, let's say that perhaps there is some meatpuppetry going on.  How exactly do I handle that? MezzoMezzo 20:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to ask for a checkuser, listing the accounts and IPs in question. Make sure you can also present textual/behavioral arguments in support of the request, or it may be rejected. - Merzbow 00:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad
Hi Merzbow,

I hope everything is going well with you.

If you have time, I would be thankful if you could take a look at Arrow's representation of Peters and Robinson, and Lewis here and here and here. It is getting painful for me. User:Proabivouac in support of User:Arrow740 has accused me of being the one who is cherry picking. It is clear to me that Arrow has misrepresented the sources. I never ever used Peters and Robinson to update the article; My specific claim is that Arrow has misrepresented the sources but Proabivouac accuses me of being the one here who is cherry picking.

BTW, Arrow and Karl Meier have started removing the views of Arafat and Barakat on Banu Qurayza again. I've started a new section on the talk page here. If you could have that on your watchlist, I would be thankful. --Aminz 10:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Pain? In fact, you are misrepresenting sources in an attempt to show that I am doing so. You started out by only having half the material I was quoting, so this is quite amazing. Arrow740 13:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music July 2007 Newsletter
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 21:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC).

WP:AE
The way this is going, banned users will be the only ones left. I wonder if you might not be willing to take a look at the Alienus thread below (NuclearUmph has gone to Arbitration, I'm working on my statement.)Proabivouac 03:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia
Hello! As it would appear, you have not been participating on the Islamophobia RFM. Seeing as you have been listed as an involved party, I think it would be worthwhile if you were to take a look at the discussion and add your own insight. This would be more helpful in reaching an agreement over how to handle the article. Thank you! MessedRocker (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed myself now. - Merzbow 23:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music August 2007 Newsletter
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 00:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC).

Terminology
Hi Merzbow,

Would you please comment on This section. A common usage of the term massacre can be found here. The term originally comes from the Old French macecle, macecre meaning butchery, shambles. The dispute is over the usage of this term vs "killing + statistical information". One I believe is factual and the other has a morally illegal aspect attached to it. Similarly we should not use "execution" (as Watt for example uses) because it carries something additional with itself. Why not writing the bare facts in a neutral language?

Cheers, --Aminz 03:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This edit, too seems to me not to be controversial though I haven't check Ibn Ishaq myself. Is this one, the reason for your revert? --Aminz 04:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There were several major issues combined in the revisions I reverted. I'll post on talk before reverting again. - Merzbow 08:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merzbow, I am definitely sure that you do not revert unless you think there are major issues with the edits. I only thought that when we can relay the information to the readers using the term "killing" and statistical information like "number of people killed", why do we need to use a controversial term. I mean, it is not necessary at best. There has been lots of discussion about this point and I really think we can simply avoid it at the minimum cost by using more neutral terms. And I can not honestly understand the reasons behind such a strong opposition to this change at the talk page. --Aminz 08:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting. I've posted a reply. Cheers,--Aminz 00:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Merzbow, I've left a response (at 14:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)) to your comment on the Qurayza talk page. Would you please take a look at it. Thanks --Aminz 19:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious image
Please take a look at the image at the top of this page. --Aminz 08:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool page. - Merzbow 10:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Stereolab - Low Fi.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Stereolab - Low Fi.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

David Hicks edits
Hi. I just wanted to compliment you on your David Hicks edits. Nice work :) --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 02:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it was basically just a shot in the dark at what looked fair. - Merzbow 04:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Template Islam
Hi Merzbow,

Could you please post your opinion on Talk:Template Islam re addition of Dhimmi. It would be great if you could clarify the connection of Dhimmi with Islamic culture and society. While I can see that from a modern perspective and due to the nationalistic movement, how Dhimmis can be considered as part of the Muslim society; in pre-modern times, however they were viewed as subjects or metaphorically neighbors of the Muslims society. They had their own communities and managed their internal affairs while paying protection taxes to their Muslim rulers. Such was the case all over the world. The concept of Dhimmi doesn't seem also to have anything to do with the culture either. I can see why one may want the term to be there and I don't care much about disputes such as this one. But eventually it seems that the organization of the template is a matter of personal opinion. Can you please share do you think Merzbow? --Aminz 10:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
I owe you a big thank you for supporting me in My RfA, which was successful with 67 supports and 20 opposes. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 23:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stereolab - Low Fi.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Stereolab - Low Fi.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy FAC
Hi. I noticed that you were a very helpful FA reviewer on the Miranda Otto article. I've been working hard on the Cillian Murphy article, bringing it from B-class to GA to A-class, and now that I've nominated it for FAC, there just don't seem to be that many reviewers around. So on the off-chance that you might have the time and inclination to review, I thought I'd ask you to take a look. If you can, please see Featured article candidates/Cillian Murphy‎. Thanks! --Melty girl 05:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music September 2007 Newsletter
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated Xihix 23:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC).

Parent organization
I think it would be fine to have those CAIR details at the top of the Criticism section, but also mention the parent organization's name (and its type) at the end of the founding statement. What's-his-name already provided those edits, we just have to add the name and State Dept classification (but not the cluttering refs which are down below) back in at the end of the founding. (SEWilco 23:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Sounds reasonable in principle. But he was also sneakily removing the NYT sentence containing "ties to the group", which is not criticism but a statement of facts that should be in a higher-profile location (let alone excised from the article altogether). Combined with his tone and language it made it extremely difficult to AGF. I'm willing to discuss all of this as soon as he promises to stop vandalizing. - Merzbow 23:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he finally let the NYT reappear (or maybe it was a Crit dupe) although down below. The HLF retrial will probably produce plenty of stuff soon anyway, as the prosecution will probably organize better.  I'll make the changes.  (SEWilco 00:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC))
 * I restored the NYT sentence above, it wasn't present in his edit and isn't criticism. - Merzbow 00:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We both added it at the same time. I think it fits better after the leadership problems.  (SEWilco 00:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC))
 * You decide and do edit.  I'm willing to wait several months for the HLF fun.  (SEWilco 00:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

Please continue the discussion
Please continue the discussion about source reliability on the entry talk page. You ignored it last time until I removed the links a second time, and only then decided to come back. I suggest that if you want to claim this is criticism you should be able to prove that. Thanks.PelleSmith 18:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You might look for other sources with the same information. (SEWilco 19:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC))


 * If the sources are reliable for news or reliable for factual reportage, then reportage of a third party's criticism would be reliably sourced. Likewise if the the sources are reliable for criticism (because it is the source's own criticism that is being reported in the entry) then overtly critical opinions can be used (although there isn't even agreement on this since that criticism is in affect presented as a primary source).  BTW, I'm not disputing the existence of criticism of CAIR.  I'm sure there are plenty of other sources that are reliable for such criticism.  I'm trying to get it through to you that news pieces from FPM are never reliable no matter how you try to spin them.  I've answered you latest comment on the entry talk page.PelleSmith 21:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest a more productive attitude would be discussion, not "trying to get things through to people", but what the heck. - Merzbow 01:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest a more productive attitude would be to discuss actual content issues instead of commenting on editors or insinuating that they have no respect for policies that haven't been shown as applicable in the discussion. POV reportage is bad reportage, not criticism.  You agree that straight reportage that isn't stating a critical perspective doesn't belong in the criticism section?  Then what we have is consensus.  What we also have, unfortunately, is a refusal on your part to simply apply the rule we seem to agree on.  You have pretty much admitted yourself that the second piece is POV reportage you just want to keep on claiming that POV reportage is criticism when you know very well that it isn't.  Is keeping one more link to that magazine worth all this ridiculousness?PelleSmith 15:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it on the talk page. - Merzbow 17:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music October 2007 Newsletter
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated xihix  (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC).