User talk:Muhammad Mahdi Karim/Archive 5

Have you seen 'Life in the Undergrowth', a BBC documentary series by David Attenborough?
I've just started watching it and it's both fascinating in content and in the photography/videography they've been able to do. Also, I'm curious - what are your beliefs and/or the stance of Islam on the concept of evolution? I had a quick search on Google on the subject and it appeared that the idea of evolution could be embraced as long humans were the exception to the theory? That was just one source though. Anyway, I was just curious about how exactly you saw the natural world and its inhabitants, given your interest in it. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 07:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask you the same question actually. The aforementioned series is good. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The documentary seems very interesting. I haven't seen it yet but will see if I can get a DVD. Regarding Evolution, there are different opinions among different Muslim scholars. As you rightfully mention, there is one unpopular belief that evolution took place with the rest of the organisms but man was created. However, the most popular belief is that everything was created by God as it currently is. Writer Adnan Oktar has explained this belief in his book Evolution Deceit, http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/ . The Qur'an mentions in numerous verses that God created man from clay. With reference to the biochemical synthesis via the primordial soup, the Qur'an may be referring to the origin of man or other species. Whatever the case, it is a certain belief by all Muslims that God is the ultimate creator and even if evolution has taken place, it has been possible by the will of God and not merely by chance. IMO, as convincing as the theory initially sounds, there is not enough evidence and the probability of it happening by chance are not feasible. --Muhammad (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We know that Artificial selection works, being regularly performed when breeding animals. It obviously isn't possible to directly observe the evolution of plant and animal species. The time-scales are simply too large. There is of course the fossil record and the physical and DNA relationships between related species. Intermediate species such as the Lungfish (lungs) and the Spotted handfish (limbs) do also still exist. More recently, direct experiments have been performed such as E. coli long-term evolution experiment which give both strong and direct support in my view. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with NS and although I don't want to disrespect your religion, I do think that if you approach a scientific question with the base assumption that the Qur'an (or any book or belief system for that matter - I'm not singling Islam or religion out) is absolutely right and beyond question, then you will consequently find it difficult to believe any theory that disputes it. There is also the old argument that goes something like this: No matter how complex and unfeasible the scientific theories that attempt to explain life and the universe are, and no matter how little scientific proof there might be of it, the question of the origin of God is always more complex and unfeasible, and there is even less scientific proof of the existence of God. IMO, if you are going to use a measure of evidence to determine your belief in theories like evolution, then it is only fair to apply the same standards to all your beliefs including religion. Anyway, you are of course entitled to your beliefs without having to answer to me, but getting back to evolution in isolation, IMO it does seem interesting that virtually all leading biological scientists, except those of devout religious faith, agree that evolution is the by far the best theory to explain the observations we have made of the natural world. You have no obligation to respond to me or Noodle Snacks as I don't want to poison our relationship and I have a lot of respect for you. :-) But if you are willing to discuss it further, I'd like to hear your thoughts. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 07:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * NS, from what I have understood of selection, both artificial and natural, the favourable traits are present in the organisms be it in small numbers. Under pressure, the favoured ones survive to reproduce. So what is happening, is a kind of filtration; traits which were present in small numbers become a majority. If this is considered evolution then I have nothing against this belief.
 * That is it in a nutshell. The only thing missing is the occasional Mutations which introduce new traits (either beneficial, no effect or detrimental). It is important to point out that Abiogenesis and Evolution are separate issues. So you could be quite happy with evolution and reject Abiogensis. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Diliff, you raise a interesting question about the origin of God. For believers, there is one unanswerable question of a superpower always existing. But evolutionists have to account for how the species originated, and they put forward theories and there is little evidence to prove it. Let's imagine that question is answered, then how did the universe come into existence? How did the Big bang occur? How did something come out of nothing? If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, how was it first created? Re the evidence for existence of God, one has to look at their surrounding. Looking at the beauty, magnificence and details of this, I can not believe it could have come merely by chance. I strongly recommended you and NS to read the book Evolution Deceit, as many of my viewpoints are based on it. --Muhammad (talk)  10:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just want to point out that it is Mass-Energy that is conserved, not mass (or matter), doesn't substantially effect the question though. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm no astrophysicist and NS is obviously more capable of answering the specifics given he studies physics, but I do have an amateur interest in it and from what I've understood, we understand most of the laws of physics as they exist in our observable universe (okay, so we don't have a unified theory yet, but our existing 'laws of physics' do accurately reflect our observations). However, and this is a big however, scientists believe that these laws break down in the moments of the big bang and given we can't directly observe it, we cannot derive any equations or laws that reflect an observation, so basically we cannot know how it started, what caused it, etc from our current understanding. I do think it is a very big leap of faith to assume that the answer must be God simply because we do not know the answer, though. Just as we don't believe in Goblins because we are yet to see any scientific evidence that they exist, so it should be for all things that we cannot observe. The question of where matter/mass came from is circular and is no more valid than the question of where God came from. Neither can be logically explained by God. If I get a chance I will read The Evolution Deceit, but I have to admit that given it is written from an Islamic religious point of view (even if the subject is scientific), I may find it hard to believe that the author is not biased towards his preconceived beliefs, whereas I think that evolutionary biologists are scientists first and generally not biased towards religious beliefs. When someone believes strongly, it is my opinion that they can potentially be blinded to the truth. Anyway, I will reserve judgement until I've read the book. :-) And again, please understand that my arguments are logical and intellectual in nature, and not intended to be an attack on you or your beliefs directly. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a fundamental belief of a Muslim that the Quran is the word of God and the absolute truth. The Quran contains many scientific beliefs which have only been realized in the last century. IMO, if the Quran was right then, why should it be wrong about creation? FWIW, I don't know of any scientific facts that the Quran denies. If you get time, check out Quran and Bible in light of science. --Muhammad (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Science simply attempts to find the best theory to explain experimental evidence, it doesn't prove anything. Mathematics on the other hand does rely on rigorous proof. I'm not sure on the Muslim position of the "Old Testament", but it does implicitly state that Pi is 3. I think that if you axiomatically consider the Quran to be the word of God, then literalism will lead to contradiction with observation. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Muslims believe there were four divinely sent books, the Psalms, Torah, Bible and Quran. However, over the years, 3 of the books (except Quran) had some inaccuracies and exaggerations added, and thus not very reliable. There was an interesting debate The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of Science – between Dr Zakir Naik and Dr William Campbell. I don't quite understand how "literalism will lead to contradiction with observation." --Muhammad (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know specifically which scientific beliefs in the Quran have only just been realised in the last century (perhaps you could mention some so that I can have a look at the details), but it could be that the Qur'an mentions a theory that existed many hundreds of years ago but was only demonstrated in the last century. The muslim empire was certainly a leader in science while Europe was suffering in the Dark Ages, so I would expect that this could be the case. Even if it is true that the Qur'an mentions things that were not known at the time, it doesn't mean the Qur'an must be right about everything. That's unsound deductive reasoning. Following from NS, if you only accept invalidation of the science of the Qur'an based on absolute scientific proof (which doesn't really exist in science as NS said), but then claim that recent scientific evidence' supports the Qur'an and therefore the Qur'an must be correct, then you're applying different and unfair standards. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Re the scientific discoveries, the Quran states in 51:48, "And the heaven We built with Our own powers and indeed We go on expanding it" referring to the fact that the universe is expanding, a discovery first made by Edwin Hubble in the 1920s. Another example 21:31, "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass, then We split them asunder? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" A reference to the Big Bang, and that every living thing has a majority of water. Also, 24:35, ""Blessed is He who made constellations in the sky and placed there in a lamp, and a moon giving light." 25:61" clearly differentiating between the stars which give out light and the moon which only reflects it. There are tens (if not hundreds) of more verses such as these which give scientific facts centuries before they were discovered by scientists using modern equipment. if you are interested in these, I ca compile them for you. --Muhammad (talk)  08:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * None of these are particularly specific or scientific though, could be interpreted in many different ways, and if taken literally are sometimes factually incorrect based on our current knowledge. For example, 21:31 says that the universe was split into pieces, but technically it is believed that the Big Bang involved fusion of elementary particles to form atoms in the first moments, not fission (splitting). And it probably could be demonstrated even in the times that the Qur'an was written that living things contained a lot of water by heating the body of an animal up to evaporate the liquid in a sealed chamber, and then condensing it into a different cooler chamber. I don't know specifically if this knowledge existed at the time, but it certainly could have given the simplicity of the experiment. But again, if you take it literally, it says all living things were made from water, insinuating that we are 100% water, not just a majority. Besides, doesn't the Qur'an also say that God made man from clay? Scientifically this is not true obviously, so the two claims seem to contradict each other when taken literally. Also, 24:35 doesn't seem to suggest that the moon reflects light as you claim it does. It just says it 'gives' light. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have had a read through the PDF you linked to. With all due respect to the author, a degree in Arts and Philosophy does not give the expertise or understanding to claim authority with science related issues. I don't claim to have strong biology knowledge, but Yahya's interpretation of in particular of Relativity is muddled at best and leaves me doubtful of his words in other areas. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Chapters 1-2 don't really attempt to refute or deny anything, just to associate evolutionists with racists, Nazis and communists. This is indifferent to associating Islam with fundamentalists, extremists or terrorists and constitutes propaganda more than actual argument. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When I read the book a few years ago, I found the associating of Nazism with Evolution biased as well so no arguments there.
 * Chapter 3 essentially talks about natural selection and mutation. It accepts natural selection as a mechanism which removes the unfit. The argument comes as to if natural selection can produce fitter individuals. The book talks about mutations, but makes the claim that all mutations are harmful, which is demonstrably false (see the E. coli growing on citrate). It also incorrectly claims that new information cannot be added to DNA (see File:Types-of-mutation.png). Noodle snacks (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Moving on to Chapter 4. Here the book claims that no intermediate species have yet been uncovered. This is simply not true. What about Acanthostega or Cynodont for example? What about currently living intermediate forms? Why is it that most species in the fossil record are not present today? Why do many species that appear today not appear in the fossil record? Noodle snacks (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Chapter 19 discusses time, and among other things, Special relativity. The chapter defines time as the "comparison made between some illusions stored in the brain" and states that "time is a concept entirely contingent on the perceiver". See Time for how physicists have defined the second (and hence time). Einstein never stated that the passage of time is subjective. The time between two events is dependant on the relative speeds of the two observers. In a given frame of reference time always passes at the same rate. If two observers are moving at different speeds then the time between two events will vary. This is counter-intuitive, but not subjective. The relationship between the time intervals is given by the formula at Time_dilation. Special relativity has many other fascinating consequences and outstanding experimental support. You and I experience time (as physicists define it), at more or less the same rate, since we are moving at similar velocities. You might note that unless the relative velocity between observers is large, then $$\Delta t' \approx \Delta t$$ and so they will experience time at more or less the same rate. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have to admit that I had many of the same observations as NS. I had a quick read through the book last night. The idea that all genetic mutations are harmful (he gives the example of a fly exposed to radiation, which is a very different and extreme cause of mutations, usually only slight mutations occur in nature) and that racists and nazis were associated with Darwinism so therefore Darwinism is evil is very silly and misleading. It seems NS may have read it more thoroughly but I found quite a bit of propaganda and incorrect assumptions about how evolution is purported to work.
 * I'll give you a couple of specific examples. The book says (page 31): "Billions of "chance events" had to take place together for just one eye in a living thing to form. Here too the blind process known as coincidence entered the equation: It first opened two holes of the requisite size and in the best possible place in the skull, and then cells that happened by chance to find themselves in those places coincidentally began to construct the eye." This is not at all what evolutionary biologists suggest happened at all. For one thing, eyes exist in so many different locations and in different forms that the assumption that two eyes formed in two eye sockets in a skull seems to only respond to the idea of eyes in advanced animals like us. Biologists suggest that eyes probably originally formed in animals simply as light sensitive cells on the surface of the body and could only detect basic light/dark. A mutation could occur which produced multiple light sensitive cells that were more effective than one. Another mutation could be a concave dimple around in these light sensitive cells which would allow them to detect light from different angles, giving the organism a better chance of detecting a predator or alternatively it could become convex and allow the animal to see the same way most insects see. This process could continue to occur in tiny improvements. As long as each improvement gave the animal a slightly better chance of survival and reproduction, then the change would stay. This is how evolution is suggested to work, not just a spontaneous eye appearing in a socket of an animal. I'm not suggesting it wouldn't take hundreds of millions of years and a lot of tiny mutations to reach this level of complexity, but hundreds of millions of years is exactly what evolution had. The key to understanding evolution in my opinion is to understand the vast amount of time involved (almost inconceivable to humans) and the vast number of animals simultaneously living/mutating in subtle ways. The products of these improvements would be passed down and spread throughout the population over time.
 * Agreed that the author may be biased in referring to two eyes only but IMO the argument stands. It does't see like chance to me to expect a series of favorable mutation to come at th right exact moent wen the organism requires it. That's like saying if I throw letters out of a box, they will arrange themselves to form not just words, sentences and chapters but a masterful, piece of literature. --Muhammad (talk)  09:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a very popular but incorrect assumption about how evolution works. Your example implies that there was one sequential throwing of letters out of a box with evolution. Evolutionary theory states that an almost infinite number of mutations occurred over an extremely large amount of time to get to our present variety of life. Some were beneficial and some were not. The ones that were not beneficial probably resulted in the animal dying instead of reproducing so this trait would not be passed on. Many other animals of the same species would also experience different mutations at the same time and all of the mutations would combine over time. Imagine a simple organism with a a life cycle of a year. Imagine that there is a stable total of one billion of them on the planet (not unreasonable). 100 million years of evolution would give 100 million generations, and therefore a huge number of organisms produced (100 million generations multiplied by 1 billion organisms per generation). If only a fraction of these experienced mutations in the genes of the parents, and each successive generation had the ability to build on the positive mutations and spread them throughout the population, then it looks a lot less like randomly constructing masterful literature and more like building a house brick by brick. Many houses would of course crumble because they were built on poor foundations (the equivalent of a genetic dead-end), but there would be a vast number of houses being built simultaneously. Over time the design of successful houses would be adopted by other builders (The equivalence of the ability of an organism to breed with other favourably mutated animals) and all the best elements of the house would become standard on all the houses although new designs would continually be built. Anyway, this might not be a perfect analogy but IMO it fits the way evolutionary theory is described better than a single literary masterpiece constructed from scratch as if all the letters had to exist in a specific order to render the final product complete. In evolutionary theory, no animal is ever complete or a masterpiece. Evolution doesn't have a preconceived goal that it aims for. Richard Dawkins described evolution as being blind. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is another: (page 38) "As indicated in the verses cited above, one of the reasons why people cannot see the realities of their existence is a kind of "spell" impeding their reasoning. It is the same "spell" that underlies the world-wide acceptance of the theory of evolution. What we mean by spell is a conditioning acquired by indoctrination. People are exposed to such an intense indoctrination about the correctness of the theory of evolution that they often do not even realise the distortion that exists." The exact same argument could be applied to any belief system that indoctrinates children a very young age where they are too young to question it, including religion. The difference between evolution and religion is that evolution is taught as science and science is constantly being adapted to new observations. Nobody says "this is the way science is and always will be", but the same cannot always be said of religion. If new evidence comes forth that contradicts existing scientific theories, then those theories will be adjusted or even thrown away completely. This is not the case with religion because an existing book provides the framework for the entire belief system. I would take the author's argument and turn it back on himself. At best the argument is simply a statement that people can be biased (true, of course but this is not a revolutionary concept), and at worst it is actually damning of any belief system that cannot be questioned or corrected.
 * To some extent I agree but science is knowledge accumulated by man. While man is subject to error, God is not. Hence a book of science could be outdated and need an update but a correct divine book is free from errors. --Muhammad (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I'm sure I could find many many more things that are false, misleading or biased but that is probably enough for now. As I originally suspected, this author tackles evolution with preconceived ideas of Islam and quotes verses from the Qur'an. If he wanted his book to be scientific and subject to the rigors of review, he should have avoided arguments that were backed up by a source that by nature was religious and not scientific IMO. By the way, it is not my opinion that religion is inherently wrong or cannot co-exist with the science of evolution. I am not religious myself, but I am not strictly anti-religion. I understand however that Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the absolute word of God, and therefore if any observation contradicts it, it is the observation which is incorrect and not the Qur'an, and this is an idea that I do find potentially unsettling. Hmm looks like you'll have a lot to read between NS and myself. Sorry about that! :-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 07:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see any observation, not a theory that contradicts the Quran. FWIW, the Quran does not mention any anti-evolution statements. The reason why many believers reject evolution is because then God would have to be left out. However, a God guided evolution seems possible and all the alarming coincidences could be explained as well. --Muhammad (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

FPs!
Great work! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Canna (plant)
Salaam, Muhammad. Thanks for the note and for keeping your cool when dealing with an editor calling you an idiot and moron. Your cool established that you are neither an idiot nor a moron. Not escalating a bad situation makes for a more peaceful editing process for all. I have asked another user who is familiar with Canna as far as I know to look at the situation and make a decision about the images, along with an explanation to you as to why or why not your image substitution is appropriate. I simply don't have time right now for any editing.

I also deleted the name-calling from the post.

In the meantime, while another user investigates the situation, continue being patient and not flaming the situation, and I thank you for this.

--KP Botany (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like User:KP Botany has the situation well in control. Dont get put off by an odd incident. Looks like Giantshoulders has already begun regretting his action. AshLin (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, studying in Bangalore.
I suddenly spotted that little change to your userpage! What are you studying there, and how are you finding it? Shall we expect lots of Indian fauna photos from you now? :-) Or maybe you might find it a bit like London is for me. Not much wildlife to photograph except when I make a special trip into the countryside, which is why (apart from the Swaledale sheep and Skylark), most of my photos are architectural. Does that also mean you have a much faster internet connection now? I did wonder how you were able to download the 20mb file. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to be studying computer science, Bachelor of Computer Applications, a 3 year course but haven't started yet as classes were postponed till 1st Aug for some reason. The weather here is pretty good, neither very cold nor hot, and I hear it remains more or less the same. Traffic is a problem compared to TZ, and the Auto rickshaws are really noisy and smoky. But the main problems I'm facing are maintaining a Halal diet and communicating with the locals. Bangalore has many botanical gardens though, so I will probably get to shoot some insects and flowers. Lal Bagh Botanical Garden is just a meters from my college. Internet was fast for the first few days but after downloading 1-2gb a day, the speed has decreased to half its original, to around 20kBps. Thanks for that picture and thanks for asking --Muhammad (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Cheetah cub close-up.jpg

 * I think it's usually better to get these from someone else... --jjron (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

POTD Notification
Hey Muhammad,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:2009 Anti Israel Protest Tanzania.JPG is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 19, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-09-19? Thanks!  wadester 16  03:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved to September 19th.  wadester 16  16:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks --Muhammad (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to move this to Template:POTD/2009-08-22. September 19 happens to be Rosh Hashanah, one of the most important Jewish holidays of the year, so you can see how an anti-Israel image that day would be disrespectful.  howcheng  {chat} 05:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With due respect, I don't think that is fair. Quds day is also one of the most important Islamic and Palestinian liberation days. And FWIW, the image is anti-Israel not anti-Jew.--Muhammad (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that not all Jews are Israelis, but even if we were to ignore that, putting that image on Quds day would make it seem that Quds day is about rallying against Israel. I wouldn't mind scheduling an image that conveys a positive image of Islam or Palestinians on that day.  howcheng  {chat} 21:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Muhammad,
 * Your request to display a politically motivated picture (that is also quite lacking in terms of informational content) specifically on a Jewish holiday is most regrettable. Moreover, your attempts to present it as so-called Quds day action (invented by the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini) is based on false pretext too: the above-mentioned day falls on 17-18 of September this year rather than on the 19th. I would strongly suggest you to refrain from this sort of activism in Wikipedia.
 * Ilvar (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The informational content of my image was discussed by many reviewers at FPC and it was considered to be one of wikipedia's finest images. It was not my desire to this image on a Jewsih holiday. In fact, I was not even aware of such a holiday until Howcheng brought it to my attention, my only wish was to see the image remain unaffected. My bad however, I somehow confused the date, and for that I apologize and thank you for bringing it to my attention. --Muhammad (talk) 07:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. I had let Wadester 16 know that it was the 18th, and he put it up for 19th by mistake. --Muhammad (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for clarifications. If this was not your intent, I apologize for suggesting otherwise. Ilvar (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

FPC closures
Ahhh yes, now i come to think of it, I hadn't sent notices to the appropriate user talk pages etc. It was my first time closing FPC's after I saw durova's notice on the AN noticeboard that the backlog was considerable. Tbh seeing the amount of work that is required simply to close an FPC nomination. It may be worthwhile putting in a bot request and getting the process done automatically. It would cut down the amount of effort and time needed to close an FPC, get more people involved, and cut down on the backlogs. Ill go over my closures and see if I can fix the mistakes I made. Thank you for letting me know :) Sedd&sigma;n talk|WikimediaUK 11:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

FP
Congratulations! Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 01:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

FPC closures
...Wow, I'm out of it today. How'd I add 4 and 7 and get 10? I'll leave the Obama closed as the reaction was so neegative that I don't think it has any chance, but that one's reopened. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 187 FCs served 02:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Pegesimallus_sp_robberfly.jpg
I just wanted to say: This is an astounding image. Don't want to vote on it, though, because anything I can't close takes forever to get closed. =) Shoemaker's Holiday Over 187 FCs served 14:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If I vote, it'll be nearer when it closes. No need to cause you the hassle of having to wait up to ane xtra week for Wadester to get his act together if I can just close it. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 187 FCs served 15:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Chaga hut noadj.jpg
Got someone else to make the decision, but agreed to do all the work of promoting, since, let's face it, it's so much easier once you've done it a few times. So, without further ado...

Congrats! Shoemaker's Holiday Over 188 FCs served 14:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks --Muhammad (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Muhammad,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Rooster portrait2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 17, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-08-17.  howcheng  {chat} 04:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

FP delisted
FYI, File:Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin edit.jpg has been deleted and delisted because it was a copyright violation. Although it was on the Kremlin.ru site and we have a general OTRS ticket that covers many of those photos, this specific one was from the Associated Press, and therefore ineligible. Regards,  howcheng  {chat} 18:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

FP
Remember that great image you did? Well, no surprises here:

FP!
Congrats! Sorry the monkey didn't make it, but, well... Not everything does, I suppose. [Though I was totally tempted to make an alt, showing a cartoon crab eating your image - Crab eating monkey, gettit?] Shoemaker's Holiday Over 200 FCs served 15:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * lol   Mae din \talk 07:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

More FP!
This really is a fantastic image. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 201 FCs served 15:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks --Muhammad (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Photo information
Hi there, your photographs are a great contribution but their encyclopaedic value would be realized only if you could include the location, determination (identification) and the identifier (note if you did it yourself or credit the person who actually suggested the identification). Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliments. For most of my images, I do include the location, though I may have forgotten to do so with some recent few. Identification is always present, as far as is possible from an image. Arthropods are usually identified by entomologists at diptera.info while the other animal shots by the respective guides. --Muhammad (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Diptera/identifications
Hi Muhammad,

Just a quick message. I've been getting increasingly concerned with the identification of your macro shots. I know from experience it can be a very hard thing to get and its annoying when you've taken a great photo. But the identification of this, in particular, seems quite dubious. In response to you urging for a gut feeling, the poster on diptera said "It looks like subfamily Harpactorinae maybe somewhere around Castolus complex? but you'll have to ask people that know your fauna." This hardly seems to constitute a positive identification. You should probably be a little more rigorous in the future... Regards, --Fir0002 12:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Apart from diptera.info, there are a few other language forums that I usually visit for confirmation, if the id from diptera is not definite or specific. Sometimes I may also write to some African entomologists but this usually takes a long time and I do not always get a reply. I asked for a gut feeling, thus I have now narrowed it down and can find an entomologist specialized in that field to id it. You will notice I haven't nominated it at FPC yet. Putting all that aside however, if the expert's belief is that it belongs to a particular group, shouldn't one assume that to be the correct id since it is usually impossible to get a proper id based on a picture, as I am sure you are well aware of? If the expert thinks it is XY and no other experts express otherwise, I think it is valid to assume the id provided. --Muhammad (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

FP 2000 - Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Rambutan white background.jpg

 * And this is it...FP 2000. The flood didn't get it for you, but you got it anyway. Congratulations. --jjron (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Muhammad,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Chrysomya albiceps eating.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 20, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-09-20.  howcheng  {chat} 23:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Nardwuar the Human Serviette
Heyo! You commented on this FPC that you'd like an edited version to fix some noise in the background. I asked Durova, but she recommended I talk to one of the digital photographers (such as your self). Do you have any good anti-noise filters/techniques? Staxringold talkcontribs 16:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to do it because accordint to some comments on the Tiger Woods nomination, people seemed to think I overdid it. Nonetheless, since you have asked, I will put one up ASAP. --Muhammad (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have some pretty good noise reduction software and a fairly good idea of how to use it, so if you can wait 24 hours, I'll have a go at doing it properly. Can't do it right this moment though. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, having had a chance to look at what you actually did the NR on, I can see I'm not really required. :-) Sorry about that. For some reason I thought it was a bit more complex... Ignore me! Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Once upon a time...
I responded to your question about Mbz1/2+2=4 on her nomination but then realised that it might not be the best location to do it, so I'm responding here instead. is the story. Or part of it, anyway. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw part of the discussion on Mbz's talk page after my comment but thanks for the juicy stuff ;-) --Muhammad (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if I am not allowed to forget the story, here's the end of it.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Mbz. IMO, you had the right to disappear and change your name, though I prefer it this way. Nice to see you back on wiki and commons. --Muhammad (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Except for the fact that she was blocked... Nevermind Mbz1, I agree with Muhammad - good to have you back anyway. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Muhammad . You are a very kind and a very nice person! I feel lucky I've got to know you. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * @ diliff, I was blocked on my own request, and at least one admin and CU knew about me using my husband's account all along. I emailed this person, when I started using my husband's account and told him/her to deal with me as he/she believed I should be dealt with. I told him/her to feel free to tell anybody he/she believes should know about 2+2=4 everything. I told him/her that, if he/she believes I should admit who I am, I will. He/she responded that he/she sees nothing bad in me using my husban's account because the block was on my own request, because I was using only one account at the time and because I did not cause any disruptions. After the issue was rised on AN/N at least three other admins, one of which is CU too said they saw nothing wrong in me going for a fresh start. Oh well... :(--Mbz1 (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

FP!
Congrats! Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 01:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Muhammad,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Black soldier flies mating.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 9, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-10-09.  howcheng  {chat} 17:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll understand
Just an auto white balance  Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Input please
Hey Muhammad: Mind commenting ? I'm interested in what you think.  upstate NYer  19:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

FP!
Nicely timed! Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 10:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean getting it just as the ant was drinking. I don't imagine that lasts very long. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 16:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Muhammad,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Housefly mating.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 26, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-10-26.  howcheng  {chat} 01:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Category Invite
Please add the category to your userpage. The category is for ease of access to a list of serial FP contributors, and will not be used for spam. Thanks,  Nezzadar   ☎   17:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Pictures
Wow!! Wonderful Pictures --Muhammad Mukhriz (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliments --Muhammad (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)