User talk:ProtectWomen

Welcome
Those articles are atrocious. Unfortunately, some wikipedians have taken fringe scholars such as Ghamidi - whose version of Islam is so heterodox that the government of Pakistan provides him with bodyguards - and portrayed their version of Islam as the truth. If you want to make these articles reflect the truth I can give you some suggestions. Arrow740 23:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD Islamic socialism
You have edited the article Islamic socialism. This article is currently being considered for deletion under the wp:afd process. You may contribute to this discussion by commenting here. Thank you. Edivorce 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, apparently you have me confused with someone else- I received no 1st warning. Also, you did not read my justification on the talk page for the edits before you brazenly reverted them. This warning you placed on my talk page should be considered a vandalism itself.ProtectWomen 08:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hijab female with laundry basket.jpg listed for deletion
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Hijab female with laundry basket.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission.  While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, a non-profit website, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-2.5 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Media copyright questions. Thank you.

Islamophobia comment
I understand that you were just trying to give a compliment and that in itself is admirable. It's just that I've seen the Islamophobia talk page descend into mud throwing so many times that any meaningful collaboration becomes impossible. But perhaps I was being a little too sensative, in which case I apologise. Also, have you read Infidel (book)? I need to expand the sysnopsis section, perhaps you'd care to help. Cheers, JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-03-6 12:03


 * No problem, mate! Unfortunately I have not had the chance to read her book although I am familiar with who she is and have the utmost respect for her.  I am a bit jealous that you have read the book and not I  :-) ProtectWomen 19:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As a Dutchman I've been very much aware of her (I've had dinner with her and corresponded with her numerous times through email) for a long time. I definitely recommend the book to you: there are some excerpts linked from the article that you might want to read. JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-03-6 22:45

Faggot (epithet)
Your edit to Faggot (epithet) hasn't really addressed the issue (though I like your wording better than what was there, and you're more informative); rather, it's just re-ordered the statements. It's clear to me that there is a strong possibility that Coulter was making a reference to the popular culture incident when she very nearly called Edwards a "faggot". However, to cite the two events sequentially, leads the reader to believe that the citations we give will back up the implied connection between the events. They don't, and that was my concern. What I'd really like is to find a reference that says that Coulter was referencing the popular culture event. There must be someone in a reasonably respected publication who did this, no? -Harmil 13:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

ALM and ItaqAllah
Thank you very much for mentioning this to me. They seems really desperate to get rid of me, and considering the biased editing these two particular editors has been involved in and still is involved in, I must say that I am not surprised. I am not too worried about these attempts though. There is no way that they will ever be successful. -- Karl Meier 10:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I thought I would also mention that I have appreciate your participation on the "Islamophobia" article. That article has desperately needed some attention from constructive editors that edit according to policy, and now I believe it seems to be in much better shape than before. -- Karl Meier 10:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism templates
Please don't so liberally use the vandalism templates. They are meant for specific acts of deliberate and clear vandalism. The situation on Islamophobia is not vandalism but an edit war that needs to be solved through discussion :O gren グレン 20:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

March 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page Criticism of Islam do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. RJASE1 Talk  05:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific? I already discussed the addition of the links on the talk page.... please replyProtectWomen 06:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR
You have already passed 3rr rule. Please note that. --Aminz 06:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad/images
Greetings, your editing on this contentious area is a bit hard to understand when you've not been involved in the image discussions save for one vote surrounding how the images are going to be laid out. Such editing is rather disruptive given the enormous talk surrounding the issue of image display. If I understand what I know of you you take issue with Islam's treatment of women and I completely understand that and in fact I tend to support that as I edit the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article (including uploading this image for it). I respectfully request that you kindly refrain from further reverting and join the talk about these issues. Thanks. 20:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point--ProtectWomen 21:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking my request to heart and joining the discussion. 21:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, but regarding my last revert: I can see by your user page and the fake message banner that you have a sense of humor; perhaps a practical joker? I wasn't sure if you were likewise being silly on the Muhammad/images revert. You made it into your version and then asked everyone to stop making reverts until there was a consensus, meanwhile, the page sits the way you prefer it. I giggled at first, but wasn't sure if you were intending a joke? --ProtectWomen 21:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes! I do have a sense of humor but I wasn't joking in my last revert. Like User:Tom harrison was essentially agreeing to in view of User:BrandonYusufToropov's logic there is no real reason to needlessly antagonize Muslims by prominently displaying an image of Muhammad at the lead of the article if a more clever way of conveying the message can be employed. I sincerely hope that we can come to an genuine consensus on this issue and that the reverting and other disruption that has surrounded this whole issue can come to a close. I will grant you that if the general consensus is established that a no holds barred image of Muhammad is to be displayed at the lead of the article then I will not further belabor the issue. 21:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In view of my explanation here would you kindly self-revert? 21:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also you may want to read this talk. 21:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to that comment. I will hold off editing that page for now :)  --ProtectWomen 21:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, then you won't revert me if I re-establish the original version? Is that what you mean by you'll hold off? 22:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The only question for me is the placement, I don't have an issue with the reference. Hold off means ... a day or two? --ProtectWomen 22:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Other than  [Personal Attack Removed] , prior to yesterday the image positions have remained stable. It is a bit surprising to me to see editors who don't display such  [Personal Attack Removed]  characteristics further his disruptive editing by revert warring against this previously stable image arrangement. I respect User:Beit Or who actually has added to the reference and thereby enhanced the content but others who just blindly revert ,it is difficult to understand. Perhaps you don't care about Muslims folks no matter who they might happen to be  [Personal Attack Removed]  (terroristic or peaceful) and so regardless you will edit accordingly. Your restoring of the link to the hatesite "Prophet of Doom" would seem indicative of this but given what I know about you I think perhaps you are someone who is just caught up in the situation and will blindly support those who are making hateful demonstrations  [Personal Attack Removed]  relative to Islam (and you just don't consider your action deeply enough). If that is not the case then I would hope that you be a bit more moderated in your Islam related editing. 22:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Netscott! While I wholeheartedly support your right to disagree with other users here, I would appreciate if in the future, you have a disagreement with one (be it non-muslim, muslim or whatever) that you please not use my talk page as a platform or battleground to further your attack. I have seen the user's edits, but never have had any direct interaction with the above stated user.  Consider me Switzerland here.  Please take your issues with other users to the admins or to the users themselves.


 * Also, I have to say I was extremely offended by your comment "Perhaps you don't care about Muslims" and that I am "perhaps someone [who would] blindly support those who are making hateful demonstrations relative to Islam".


 * Very offended.


 * I care deeply about Muslims, that is why I make edits to so many Islamic topics.


 * Also, I never stated my position about "The Prophet of Doom" website, but to be honest, I think he is too critical of Muslims. But that is besides the point.  The article is about "Criticism of Islam" ... the section in question is "Directories of sites critical of Islam".  Please note that the link is only that and nothing more.  A link.  The Prophet of Doom is not claimed to be a primary source for the article.  Anyone in the public (i.e. non-editors of Wikipedia) who found themselves on that page would likely be interested in what the criticism of Islam was.  The directory of sites critical of Islam is not an endorsement of those sites, but a small list of prominent sites presenting arguments critical of Islam.  Arguments could be made that ANY of the sites in the Critical Sites AND the Muslim Responses sites listings were "hate sites".  That's not a judgment for us to make.  It is our responsibility to neutrally provide the information and let people decide for themselves. ProtectWomen 05:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The range will never be blocked - unless the blocking person wants to block millions of people. 72.88.190.196 19:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So you think you're all powerful hiding behind an IP address? Can you please stop your online Terrorism? --Matt57 23:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This Wiki-Warrior was undoubtedly replying to my edit here --ProtectWomen 23:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi ProtectWomen, after we get some more attacks from this user, we can try to file for a [Check user and hopefully it will reveal the username. As you probably found out, the people from the "other team" are not friendly towards us and they specially try to hammer down on newcomers. I hope you dont let that get to you. Some people here are bullies and they need an iron hand. If you look at the history of the topics we are interested in, the topics always start out with a lot of censorship from these people but that is eventually overcome. All these people can do is slow down the spread of information but they can never stop it as they hope to. I like your nick. This is one thing which is needed a lot, more power to women. To the anonymous vandal who's reading this, please vandalize as much as you can. Its good for the cause. Bring it on. --Matt57 03:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Matt, I can tell you are a great person with lots of spirit. While I was gone for a few days, it looks like they figured out who this person is? Somebody named HisExcellency who is apparently a permanently banned user?  At least the admins are here to help us out, otherwise this person would be extremely disruptive. --ProtectWomen 08:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are other users who agree that my commentary was inappropriate then I'll be inclined to apologize but to be perfectly honest with you I don't see how they were. They were a bit harsh but not inappropriate in my opinion. 17:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ProtectWomen, thanks, ah I see. His Excellency is another sock puppet of the previously banned vandal Shams2006. I'm glad they found out. I had suspected it was either him or BhaiSaab. --Matt57 18:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to solicit the thoughts of others on this matter, they are free to comment if they happen upon this. However, I would ask you in the future to please be careful about talking about "hate" as if you are against it, when you engage in it yourself.  Thanks.  (Remember the hand that points a finger has 3 fingers pointing straight back and the 5th finger pointing in another direction altogether) --ProtectWomen 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I refute your allegation that I've expressed hate as it is total nonsense. Again, there were no personal attacks here. I've described the actions and aspects of individuals, not the individuals themselves. ie: I've never said something to the effect that ProtectWomen and TharkunColl are anti-Muslim bigots, etc. There is a very significant difference. 18:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This denial of personal attacks looks more like a personal attack than any of the statements which preceded it. It might be wise to discontinue this conversation, which looks increasingly irrelevant to the encyclopedia, in favor of more productive endeavors.Proabivouac 18:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a hypothetical. Seriously people... can we apply some logic here? 18:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I must agree that imputations of hate and hatefulness are generally unhelpful, and should be avoided in the absence of very strong evidence.Proabivouac 18:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please! Enough with the Personal Attacks already! Please, no more comments on this subject.  It is deteriorating rapidly and I'm not in the mood to be insulted repeatedly.  Seriously, let's drop it and let's get back to editing an encyclopedia.  --ProtectWomen 18:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:72.88.165.163
I am pressing Netscott to do a CheckUser to help see who is behind this IP. I hope it can be done and then we can find out who this Vandal is. --Matt57 22:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, we will get this online jihadi's activity stopped. --Matt57 22:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:USER
Hi ProtectWomen, Another editor has expressed concern about the use of your user page for social and political commentary. For better or for worse (I'd say worse,) some degree of this is allowed, but some of this crosses the line into the arguably inflammatory: the title "Who are these men trying to emulate?" is not particularly subtle, and the link behind "How do you feel about women?" is inappropriate for user space. I'd appreciate it if you would do your part to improve the atmosphere in this space by correcting the problem.Proabivouac 00:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As it appears that you've not been logged on, I've done it for you. Steering clear of potentially inflammatory commentary will help us all get along, and avoid further problems in this respect. Thanks for your understanding.Proabivouac 00:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Proabivouac,
 * Thank you for your help. As you can see, I am a new user and still wet behind the ears so to speak.  Certain things in this world are particularly offensive to me, and it's a little shocking that there are people around here who might have been offended by my user page as it was.  Well, I'm not here to cause trouble at Wikipedia- I'm just a passionate person and feel that awareness needs to be raised about certain issues.
 * Again, thank you for looking out for me as I was unable to log in for a couple days ♥--ProtectWomen 08:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ProtectWomen, i know you won't bite, i simply thought i would ask for the opinion of a user experienced in this area, which is what i did. as long as we can discuss in a civil and detached manner, then i think we'll get along just fine. ITAQALLAH   18:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I didn't think of it in that way, that Proabivouac had more experience in this arena, but I see your point. However, I think it is a better measure of good faith (in general terms) to approach the individual directly on that user's talk page with any problem. Then if input from a third party is desired - ask them to join the discussion on the talk page of the user in question, instead of on the third party's user page. Thank you for getting back to me on this, I look forward to more interaction with you in the future.  --ProtectWomen 18:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * sure, apologies for not contacting you directly about this. ITAQALLAH   18:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank u! ~♥~ ProtectWomen 18:09, 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 04:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam
Hi ProtectWomen! I noticed your revert of my contextual (neutral) contribution. Since I am new on this English version of the subject (I contributed to the Dutch version) I am wondering what stance this action was designed to protect. Rokus01 01:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

9 year old is still a child
Hello, I wonder whether that sentence on your userpage is a reference to Muhammad? Regards, NN 10:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am only pointing out that any sexual activity that adults engage in with children constitutes sexual abuse (at the least) or rape (probably more accurate). Consequently, a 9 year old happens to be a child.  As for M-?  That is up to the interpretation of anyone coming to my userpage. I will not mention that name on my userpage for any reason --ProtectWomen 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Consent to Sex of Women Captives
Hello, I think consent of the woman to sex is an important issue. The Koran says it is okay for a man to have sex with his woman slave. It however does not say he requires her consent. Accordingly I have added the following text to some articles:

There is no mention of requiring consent of the female in the Koran

Do you think the above text is appropriate by Wiki standards?

Regards,

NN 05:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I appreciate. Regards, NN 18:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
A lot for the barnstar. It's a very interesting-looking one. Arrow740 01:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

PW, thanks also for that link to the women-banned from driving in Saudi Arabia link. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 18:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation proceedings on Islamic military jurisprudence
I've requested mediation proceedings here concerning the "sex with female captives" dispute and listed you as a party. Would you be willing to join the discussion? Many thanks for considering this, and for all your good work on the encyclopedia. BYT 08:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Islam and children
you made this insertion, can you confirm that you possess this publication? else, per WP:CITE, you need to link to where you actually obtained this from. ITAQALLAH  22:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * PW, thats a great insertion. Thanks for putting that in. I tried to search that book, it costs $26. Does it have other usable great quotes from Khominie? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes the quote is real, lots of shocking material, I don't miss the man at all --ProtectWomen 07:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * These are excellent quotes. I wish I had the book so we could include all its material in Wikipedia as this is a notable scholar of Islam. So you have the book with you in physical form? You know people have been deleting the Homa link saying its not reliable but if you can get it all yourself from this book, that would be great. Wish they had it in Google. Are there any good quotes about the 72 virgins? I've made some small nice additions to the article. It would be great if this article can be featured but thats a hope too high. I can start putting in stuff though. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved from User Page to User Talk
Hallo protectwoman. Even a rapic post before I shall be banned. This is (probably was, after "moderating") my head of islamophobia "Islamophobia is a controversial neologism defined by some as a prejudice against, or demonization of, Muslims.[1][2][3] Other people are seeying islamophobia as a controversial neologism introduced to characterise critics on islamic issues as an irrational and persistant fear (phobia). As a controversial neogolism the word islamophobia is not to find in e.g. the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary or Dutch Dikke van Dale, just like it's opposing controversial neogolism islamophilia." Also a link is made to islamophilia (which is protected for re-opening, bah) Limboot 08:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

user:Embargo
on the user:Embargo, you reverted content with the comment, 'Sorry to remove it; it's a very nice looking template, but remove trolling, per Proabivouac.' what does this mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emerson7 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 17 April 2007

ic...but what is Proabivouac? --emerson7 | Talk 00:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A user. User:Proabivouac--Kirby♥time 08:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't notice it already
ALM Scientist is back from retirement (what a surprise!) and apparently believe that you are my sock-puppet :). Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Karl_Meier. It is a waste of time of course, but somehow I find his request that doesn't present a single diff or anything else as evidence to be quite amusing. -- Karl Meier 14:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw that too, funny. He also tried to delete 72 virgins which was a speedy keep. Nice start after a long break, I would say, heh.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Your user page
I have nothing against you. But current user page make it difficult for me to assume good faith towards you. You could obviously support gay/lesbian and be a member of Islam-project. But it looks not right to have Islam name in the middle and surround it with gay/lesbian thing. One can say that it might be just a coincident but given that your past user-page had many other wrong things, I think it is a deliberate effort to offend Muslims. I hope you could correct your user page and make it non-offended. --- A. L. M. 13:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are you offended? Arrow740 16:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ALM, I am confused. My question is the same as Arrow's above. What is offensive about my userpage?  Allah created all of us the way we are.  He must have had some purpose in creating homosexuality, no? But it is Allah's creation, not ours.  True Islam embraces everyone and does not discriminate. --ProtectWomen 05:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why you have put Islam in the middle and surround it with gay/lesbian thing? Given that Islam is against them do you not think it will obviously offend Muslims and create an atmosphere of hostility. Should I post it on WP:ANI? --- A. L. M. 14:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Bigotry has no place in Islam nor in Wikipedia. But I like you ALM so I will suggest you use RfC first. WP:ANI could turn up making you look very bad and there is no need for that. --ProtectWomen 14:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not saying do not support gay/lesbian or remove that flag from your user page. But do not surround Islam with it and do not present it in obviously offensive way. --- A. L. M. 14:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wiki isn't censored. ≈  Maurauth  (09F9) 15:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No body is saying to censored it. Read User page. --- A. L. M. 15:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, agree with ALM, to quote Jimbo "using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea". Addhoc 15:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not attempt to insert homophobia into the encyclopedia by denying a gay/lesbian Wikipedian the right to say that xe is a homosexual Muslim. One can only be offended by the correlation of gay pride and Islam if one is either an Islamophobe or a homophobe. I suggest that Wikipedia accepts neither Islamophobia or homophobia. FCYTravis 18:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting I'm homophobic? Based on the fact I don't think user pages should be used in this manner? I suggest you reconsider your accusations. Addhoc 20:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting that you don't understand that there is absolutely nothing that violates our userpage policy about surrounding the "WikiProject Islam" box with gay pride flags. Please identify how gay pride flags surrounding the WikiProject Islam box are "campaigning for or against anything or anyone" or attacking people." Xe wants to express that xe is proud to be a gay/lesbian Muslim. That it may offend some users who believe that there is something wrong with being gay and Muslim is of no relevance. FCYTravis 20:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't believe the only intent was communicate self identification, nor am I trying to censor Wikipedia to prevent editors self identifying in this manner. In my humble opinion, the page design is needlessly controversial. Addhoc 21:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't see what could possibly be controversial about making the personal statement that you are gay and interested in WikiProject Islam. If someone takes offense to that, that's their problem. FCYTravis 21:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I suggest the user page is modified such that it communicates the user is gay and interested in project Islam in a non-controversial manner possibly by using fewer user boxes. Addhoc 23:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You had won, I have taken my report back from WP:ANI. Now its time to actually start editing at gay articles. Looks like you never have edit them at all. Those three flags surrounded by Islam should be justified now with some edits -:). I will not reply you and only wish to ignore you. It is because I think your user page is not like that because your support gays but because you wish to offend Muslims. so Good luck and bye. --- A. L. M. 20:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks to everyone who contributed here, and especially those who defended me against this homophobic attack. I don't believe there is a place for this kind of bigotry in Wikipedia.


 * THANK U goes to FCYTravis, Maurauth , ThuranX,  A l is o n, Cyde Weys , Arrow740 for making me feel that Wikipedia is a safe place.  Thank you to all I just named, for showing tolerance, compassion and equality.


 * Just a personal note, unrelated to Wikipedia: I believe the future of Islam will be found in organizations like Al-Fatiha Foundation in which I place my full support.--ProtectWomen 18:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A Comment
I cannot help it if you are unable to figure out simple Wikipedia functions like clicking on the "undo" button. Also I wish the worst of luck to organizations like Al-Fatiha Foundation because they are incompatible with Islam. MomoShomo 16:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the Section title to separate your comment from the other conversation. So tell us MomoShomo, are you a new sock of His excellency ?  --ProtectWomen 16:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If my edits were more in line with yours or those of other people in your clique, e.g. Matt57 or Arrow740, you would be welcoming me rather than asking me these sorts of questions. Please don't try to intimidate new users who have opposing views. MomoShomo 18:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Arrow740 18:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * clique? You've been editing here for barely 4 days.  There is no evidence to suggest that you are new, only that your username "MomoShomo" is new. Are you a sock of Kirby?  Kirbytime may have been anticipating a block and preemptively created a sock "in case" ??  In your first 5 hours of editing on Wikipedia you left 7 comments on Matt57's userpage- rather incivil, might I add,  as if you already had something against him  .  Maybe you just wanted an alter-ego with which to further attack Matt57 . --ProtectWomen 18:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, your comment about Al-Fatiha was uncalled for, homophobic, bordering on hate speech. Please keep your intolerance to yourself.  Thanks.--ProtectWomen 18:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, do not skew my statements. To say that an organization's principles are incompatible with a certain religion is neither homophobic or anything else. My statement is just as bad, or good, as you telling a devout Muslim that you support such an organization, which, according to your logic, should be categorized as Islamophobic. Do not attempt to lecture me with hypocritical comments such as these. To be frank, I have something against everyone who pushes bias toward Muslims. As for all this "sockpuppetry" nonsense, get back to me when you think you've figured out who I am, instead naming all of the Muslims you can think of. Perhaps I am a "sockpuppet" of all the Muslim users that have ever edited Wikipedia. MomoShomo 18:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Skew? Do you have short term memory loss?  I was referring to this statement: "I wish the worst of luck to organizations like Al-Fatiha Foundation" - again, keep your homophobia off my userpage please --ProtectWomen 18:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I do wish the worst of luck to an organization like that which misrepresents itself as Islamic. There is no short-term memory loss here. Keep your Islamophobia off of mine and other userpages. If I had said that I do not like that foundation because they represent homosexuals, then yes, it is homophobic. I do not like that foundation because they are incompatible with Islam. So yes, you are skewing my statement. MomoShomo 18:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, keep your bigotry off my userpage as well as your imaginary phobias. Islam is a choice, sexual orientation is not.  Islam is compatible with homosexuality, it is the Muslim leaders stuck in the 7th century who refuse to get with the times and embrace all of Allah's children.   --ProtectWomen 19:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Islam is not compatible with homosexuality. Do you expect Muslims to change the Qur'an to appease people like you? Maybe you don't know, but the Qur'an is not a wiki. MomoShomo 19:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * He's either Kirbytime doing a bad job of hiding it or User:BhaiSaab or HisExcellency impersonating him as cover. Arrow740 19:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There is homosexuality in the Qur'an. Of course I disagree with Muhammad's fixation on children too young to consent (this is not "islamophobia" but my disagreement with the Prophet). However, speaking in Muhammad's favor, he was probably bisexual.

''Round about them will serve, (devoted) to them, young male servants (handsome) as Pearls well-guarded. 

Round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual (freshness) 56:17

And round about them shall go youths never altering in age; when you see them you will think them to be scattered pearls. 76:19''

Also from the Bukhari Hadith:

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 152:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

''Whenever Allah's Apostle went to answer the call of nature, I along with another boy used to accompany him with a tumbler full of water. (Hisham commented, "So that he might wash his private parts with it.)"'' --ProtectWomen 19:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a purpose to these flippant remarks? I will not play your games. You do not have to look far for condemnation of homosexuality in the Qur'an and Hadith. Do not contact me anymore please. MomoShomo 20:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this probably won't be our last contact. It's only a matter of time before myself or someone else requests a checkuser against you.  And I suspect you will turn out to be a banned user avoiding a block.  I suspect it's going to be the community who will not want to play your games.--ProtectWomen 20:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ProtectWomen, I think you got it, MomoShomo might be 'His excellency'. This is definitely a sock, H.E is a good suspect. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Matt, whoever it is, Momoshomo seems to have already known who you were. Right out of the gate with Momo's first edits, he was intent on going straight for your throat.  That's why I thought it might be Kirby, but His excellency is also a logical choice.  I'll be busy the next few days, but I suggest someone request a checkuser.  I suspect MomoShomo will turn out to be a sock of a banned user. --ProtectWomen 20:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure I'll request for the Check User to His Excellency. This is definitely not just a 4 days old user.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * MomoShomo has been blocked already as a sock of His Excellency. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain?
Hi, could you kindly explain me from which verse in http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/tahrir/tahrir25.htm#a4 this link you sourced your information? Are you sure it is Arabic? it could be even Persian? Do you understand these languages? If not you cant justify having that link as a ref.  &#327;ë&#359;&#924;&#466;&#324;&#287;ë&#343;  Peace Talks 05:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I replied to your comments on my talk page.  &#327;ë&#359;&#924;&#466;&#324;&#287;ë&#343;  Peace Talks 11:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Format
Pardon me for butting in, but seeing your footnote I edited your page to add a references section and the references tag. If this is not what you intended, please let me know and I will undo it. Tom Harrison Talk 13:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, it looks great!  ~♥~--ProtectWomen 18:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Gays
Being gay as I've known is a "choice", I didn't know that "it is not" a choice until you pointed it out. Is there any scientific basis to this? I know some of the animals choose partners of the same sex (eg. Goats), any scientific study on human homosexuality that proves it is not a choice? I am trying to learn here and I though u are the best person to ask  &#327;ë&#359;&#924;&#466;&#324;&#287;ë&#343;  Peace Talks 11:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello to you!
Hi there I just wanted to say hello. Also, the image on your userpage seems quite big and take a while to load (at least for me). Any chance of resizing it? Thanks.--0rrAvenger 06:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Christopher_Paul.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Christopher_Paul.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 15:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Christopher_Paul.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Christopher_Paul.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. ShakespeareFan00 15:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently some people have nothing better to do than go around deleting legitimate fair use images? --ProtectWomen 23:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Silent Vigil
I am giving away this userbox as a sign of solidarity with our good friend Matt57. The gross injustice purportrated against him shall be met with peaceful non-violent protest. Please place on your userpage until this excessive and unjust ban is reversed. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 07:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Christopher Paul.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Christopher Paul.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 00:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Userbox
Hi,

Can you please remove the image "Image:Burqa Afghanistan 01.jpg" from the userbox "This user opposed misogyny". The image is of a traditional Muslim and Afghani dress. It is quite offensive to Muslim and Afghani women to label their traditions dress as "misogynistic".Bless sins (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you think you can speak for them? Arrow740 (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)