User talk:Matt57

File:Mohammad Kaaba.jpg

Miniature of Muhammad re-dedicating the Black Stone at the Kaaba. From Jami Al-Tawarikh ("The Universal History" written by Rashid Al-Din), a manuscript in the Library of the University of Edinburgh; illustrated in Tabriz, Persia, c. 1315 during the rule of the Sunni Arab Muzaffarid dynasty. Story behind this incident: According to Muslims, at one time the Black Stone had to be placed in the Kaaba. Every member of the Quraish wanted the honor of placing the stone with his own hands in the Kaaba, so they were unable to come to a resolution. Muhammad showed his leadership skills and intelligence and came up with a solution that satified everyone, by placing the stone in a sheet of cloth and allowing everyone to hold this cloth, and then placed the stone in the wall with his hands.

Ali Sina page

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

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

Re: Stoning to Death in the Hadith

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

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

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

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

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

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

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

response to your message

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

About the category for deletion thing

You left a message on my talk page about the Category:Former Muslims deletion debate, saying that it "must be resolved soon and the Deletion notice must be taken out". You also asked on the category talk page why the category was being considered for deletion.

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

Hope that answered your questions. See you around. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why an admin hasn't closed it yet... I was wondering that myself earlier today. Adimns have closed other discussions from that same day, but that one and several others haven't been closed yet. I don't know why. Maybe the admins are busy with other things. I don't know. It seems like all the ones from that day that have been closed were either delete or re-name and the ones where the consensus seems to be "keep" seem to be the ones that haven't been closed yet. Maybe the admins aren't in as much of a rush to close those. Who knows. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 17:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You said, "You didnt have to pay importance to an anonymous person." Aren't we all anonymous? We are all either IP addresses or psudonymous screen names here. The person (User:66.126.82.49 (see their contributions here)) was someone contributing from an IP address who was fairly new and didn't understand how things worked and saw a page that they felt was threatening and scary. My hope was that they could see the process of how things work, express their fears, have their fears calmed, and go away happy. Meanwhile the Wikipedia community would be aware of something that appears threatening to outsiders. An anonymous person is still a person, and people are important. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've asked on WP:VPA if non-admins can close deletion debates that are to be kept, and if not why. It was my understanding that one had to be an admin. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are you getting so upset about this? The category isn't going to be deleted, it's not a big deal. The IP's other contributions aren't vandalism, and we are supposed to assume good faith. Not all IPs are vandals, just like not all new users are vandals. In fact, most of Wikipedia's content comes from IPs. I don't understand why you're so worked up. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

YES, its a big deal because someone (you) decided to noninate a category for deletion based on Anonymous Vandal edits of a user, who deleted text in the category page and threatened the people listed in the category. Thats the upsetting part. Now, work hard to get the category out of Deletion and dont listen to Vandals next time. Learn to see whats vandalism and when its not. The proper thing was for you to REVERT the vandalism. Instead you went along with the Vandal and decided to NOMINATE the category for Deletion. Amazing. --Matt57 18:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Lists

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

Image:Walid Shoebat.jpg

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

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

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

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

Vandalising!? and Me?

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

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

Zakir Naik

Hi Matt,

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

Re: 213.42.21.79

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

Dr, Zakir Naik and Ali sina

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

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

plz reply me my wikipedia id is mak82hyd

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

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

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

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

Ali sina critism

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

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

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

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

Death of Anwar Shaikh

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

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

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

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

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

Ali sina reply

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

Re Ali Sina: Not a ballot?

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

Blocked

You have been blocked for violation of WP:3RR at Ali Sina. Almost all of your recent edits consist of either edit warring or calling people vandals. I think you need to cool off for a bit and use dispute resolution instead, once the block expires. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 03:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought the 3RR didnt apply if I was reverting anonymous IP edits. Because technically they can get another IP and keep reverting stuff while I can do it only 3 times. I'll try to get that article semi-protected.--Matt57 13:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Re Dealing with Vandals

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

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

• Bullying or Stubbornness

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

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

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

Re Criticism of the Qur'an. Hopefully, admin Tom harrison whom i trust too much protected the article. I hope involved parties discuss the issues at the talk page. The point can be synthetized as per admin Grenavitar commented earlier:

'anti-Muslim' leaning editors want to point out these 'bad' things of the past and essentialize them as a constant of Islamic history. Our 'Muslim' leaning editors want to lessen or rationalize these views. Neither way works and it is very difficult to present this in a neutral light. We aren't a scholarly paper that can have a thesis and we aren't a paper encyclopedia which only covers the basics (which makes it much easier).

I've edited islam-related articles before but w/ the persistent edit warring between the two sides described above i decided to slow down my contributions re to those articles. I've been accused of being anti-semitic asshole and a member of the anti-Zionist cabal by wikipediareview.com gurus, a wikifascist by Daniel Brandt. However, i am still optimistic that wikipedia would still fight those kind of attitudes as i commented once at pbs.org/mediashift.

Vandalism is easy to spot and as i said earlier above, if the IP doesn't want to discuss than i'll block him personally. The problem is not about that kind of vandalism but the attitude of a few wikipedians. I can't just block those established users but there's a somehow long process that admins including myself can follow (i.e Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, etc.). Feel free to contact me anytime you need help. Cheers -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 15:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Answering-Islam.org

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

islamonline.net

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

Islamic extremist terrorism

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

Mecca

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

That AFD on the list of ex-Muslims

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

WorldNetDaily link

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

Also, I do not think it helps your case to continually say that someone or someones are systematically censoring Wikipedia. If you feel that this is the case, you might do better to create a subpage of your userpage, list alleged incidents there, cite them with diffs, and then link to this page subtly in your signature. Every time you yell it, it inevitably sounds a little quieter. Just let whatever evidence you claim to have speak for itself. — coelacan talk — 20:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively to a sub-page, you could simply turn your main user page, User:Matt57, into such a list. That would be both sufficiently prominent and sufficiently subtle imho (hope that makes sense). — coelacan talk — 17:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Quranic mentions of violence

I changed the name to make it acceptable.

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

logo

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

hello Matt

although i appreciate you enquiring, i don't appreciate its aggressive and vindictive manner. i simply had some spare time to do maintenance, where i fixed the heading structure. i noticed there were two entries for the lists, so i removed it for the time being. had there been more entries as there are now i would not have removed it. why not before? hadn't noticed it before. this constant unjustified bad faith simply indicates lack of interest in collaborative editing, and i insist that you stop exuding it. ITAQALLAH 08:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry, i'm not sure you know what you're talking about. you are indulging in conspiracy theories. non-muslims and muslims have always been welcome to participate. wikiproject islam has never been the 'muslim guild', the latter was a totally separate wikiproject, which has now been removed per consensus of the community. incidentally, i had never signed up to it, so i'm not sure where you're getting these ideas. wikiproject islam has always been "NPOV". the aim of the wikiproject is to help improve the quality of Islam related articles. as long as you agree with that and abide by policy/guideline, we should get along just fine. ITAQALLAH 14:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

well hopefully others can help in putting the templates up on all of the related pages, there are certainly loads to go through. ITAQALLAH 07:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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

apologies

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

User:Nehpetskenawi

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

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

FFI

matt, why is Ali sina views and debates are being written in FFI page. its not his page its about website so just write about website not about the founder. how can i write about yusuf qaradawi who made the islamonline.net website on the website page, its wrong. just write about FFI on the article what his founder said or thinks does not matter. Mak82hyd 00:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

To paraphrase what you say, "why write about Muhammad on the Islam page ? After all he was just the founder. The Islam page is about Islam and not the founder.". That doesn't make sense does it ?. What the founder of 'x' says is relevant in an article about 'x' if he is saying it in relation to 'x' as opposed to say other unrelated to FFI personal life matters e.g. any claims of death threats against the founder are not notable but a challenge issued by the founder on the FFI web site are notable. Ttiotsw 05:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Great point, thanks T. Yes, Mak, should I go ahead and delete information about Muhammad from the Islam page? Hopefully you should get the point now.--Matt57 06:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why Khalid Zaheer said this. This is my guess that he is using Government ISP. Because in Pakistan, internet is subsidized. ISP's can bypass Government network easily and satellite internet is heavily used by private sector because of its reliability. If you want to put this information, you need to source it as well, otherwise it will constitute Original research. TruthSpreader^Talk 16:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, Khalid Zaheer even hasn't put the discussion on their website, hence, we don't even have a secondary source to prove that discussion is even happening or not! TruthSpreader^Talk 16:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not I've doubt in this debate. It is what wikipedia's policy says. You need to bring information from WP:V and WP:RS sources. The information needs to be attested by someone! TruthSpreader^Talk 16:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Book covers

Hi, is there a WP policy which restricts a book cover image to only its own article? thanks. --Matt57 19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Matt57. Please read the book and magazine templates.

• Magazine cover: This image is of a magazine cover, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the magazine or the individual contributors who worked on the cover depicted. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of magazine covers: to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question,
• Book cover: This image is of a book cover, and the copyright for it is most likely owned either by the artist who created the cover or the publisher of the book. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers: to illustrate an article discussing the book in question. Cheers -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Template:Book_cover says "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question". It doesnt have to be the article exclusively devoted to the book. If ANY article is discussing this book, then the picture can be displayed. Also, I'm not seeing any explicit policy that says that the image cannot be used on its own as I had put in some of the articles. Some time I may look for clarification for this thing from other members. If you want to remove the images for now, you may.--Matt57 21:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Matt. I am not the only one who knows about the application of such terms. You can have a look at these as well; replaced non-free with free image and Using free image instead. Cheers -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

yamin

lol, my friend says its http://www.iiop.org/Final_Response.php. regards. Mak82hyd 11:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Matt, I've been using the Internet Archive instead, like this, because ICSSA has an article here while the International Institute of Peace doesn't and IIOP goes somewhere else. Also the Internet Archive's version is not going to go down, whereas the IIOP could pull that from their site at any time. IIOP's version is a little easier to read though, so we're probably best to just link both. — coelacan talk — 13:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

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

Jerry Klein Islamophobia Parody

Hi, thanks for your input during the question to delete the info on Jerry Klein's Islamophobia Parody. The decision was to not delete the article - here's what an admin posted:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below...

The result was keep. Majorly (Talk) 18:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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

edit summaries

please strive to use accurate edit summaries. this for example was totally incorrect and demonstrates that you reverted, claiming that removal had been "unexplained", without looking at the talk page. PN Oak had also been covered on the talk page. ITAQALLAH 17:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You assumed bad faith by calling my edit summary deceptive, which it was not. I'm not expected to see the last 500 edits and see how that image had been taken out or included. All I saw was that Zora took the image out without explaining why. It doesnt matter how many times the image is taken out. It must be explained everytime its taken out - right? Thats what Edit summaries are for, right? I didnt see you telling her that HER edit summary was incorrect. If she had explained why she took it out, that would have resolved it. Please assume good faith next time.--Matt57 05:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

? your edit summary was "deceptive", intentionally or not. she did explain, both in her edit summaries (i.e. 29 Dec edit) and extensively on talk. edit summaries are for describing the change made (and besides, you definitely don't attempt to justify every change you make in your summaries, and neither does anyone else for that matter-- that is what talk is for). that you simply refused to bother looking at the talk page or a little further down the article history doesn't permit making silly excuses, Matt. you called it "unexplained", and that is just wrong any way you look at it. you have also added a fraudulent caption for the above picture, you clearly know very little about the picture and almost nothing of what event it depicts. ITAQALLAH 19:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

She did NOT explain her image deletion in THIS edit summary. A Fraudulent caption, you say? Can you please stop assuming bad faith or do I have to warn you to stop making personal attacks? What is the correct caption? Give a link where it tells the story of the image.--Matt57 21:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• absurd. she did explain her deletion, she does not have to re-iterate the reasoning every time she removes it. you would know that she had explained it had you looked closely or attempted to assess the dispute, but as you had done neither you would not be in the position to make an unqualified statement. assuming bad faith? could you please explain where? the caption is false and clearly made up- that is known as fraudulent- whether it was intended or not. "deceptive" and "fraudulent" describe the contents of your edit summary and caption respectively, they have nothing to do with casting doubts over your behaviour. the latter is something i do not intend.
• can you tell us from where you obtained your current caption? to me, it seems like total nonsense. the image is of Muhammad before prophethood (so which Muslims are you referring to?), being entrusted by Quraishi to put the black stone on the Kaaba after its reconstruction.[1] ITAQALLAH 22:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, everytime a material is deleted, it should be mentioned WHY it is being deleted, whether its being deleted for the first time or 100'th. I will correct the caption some time. In the mean while please try to assume good faith and dont use words on other editors like deceptive and fraudulent without investigating.--Matt57 23:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Yes, everytime a material is deleted, it should be mentioned WHY it is being deleted, whether its being deleted for the first time or 100'th" it was mentioned why in the history as well as on talk. you choose to narrowly examine just one summary, which is extremely frivolous. you knew there was warring, you should have "investigated" before making unqualified statements, which turned out to be false.
• "dont use words on other editors like deceptive and fraudulent without investigating", i used those words to describe the content, not the contributor. per this discussion, if anyone needs to do "investigating" before they make statements, it's you ^_^. ITAQALLAH 00:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I dont have time to argue endlessly over a little edit where a user removed an image without explaining why. You're not even that user, so please WP:Cool Off, or whatever that shortcut is. --Matt57 06:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad(saw)

Peace, Good matt, My dear bro, you are coming to the way of True religion, Islam slowly. U respect and love our beloved Prophet Muhammad(saw) so much that U have even placed a painting of somebody. any ways What I want to remind you is Please If you like Muhammad(Saw) obey him and follow islam but dont start worshipping him as he said Only Almighty can be worshipped and none except him can be worshipped. Muhammad(saw) is just the Final prophet of Almighty. I admire your love and respect for Prophet Muhammad(saw) but remember Idol worshipping is a big Sin in Islam. Peace. Mak82hyd 21:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Mak, thanks for your guessing, but I'll remain an athiest. However I appreciate the good deeds of everyone. The caption of the picture is what I had heard of Mohammed and undoubtedly this was a good example of leadership skills shown by Muhammed, if the incident really happened. However a display of the picture of Muhammad, if even if I was converting to Islam, does not mean in my opinion that we are indulging in idol worship. This is something I dont understand. This is definitely not idol worship. We have a picture of Wikipedia's logo here. That doesnt mean we worship it. Its just a representation of information, like text. See my point? Yes it goes contrary to what you have been taught but I believe I'm right - pictures are simply another representation of information. A picture says more than a 1000 words, as goes the proverb. --Matt57 22:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

my Userpage. …using wikEd

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

Orphaned fair use image (Image:FFI-logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:FFI-logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 12:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali Sina

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

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

If Siddiqui is a living person, then this is a libel agianst him, and shoudl either be attributed or removed completely.Bless sins 00:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You wrote "This isnt libel. Ali writes about it here: http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/Ghamidip6.htm - you're saying that Ali has lied?"

What I find interesting is your question "you're saying that Ali has lied"? Does Ali even exist? Ok let's suppose there really is a guy named Ali Sina. This Ali Sina says "Muslims have no pride, no self esteem, no dignity, no honor."Defeating Islam Do you really expect me to believe that?

I am a Muslim. Do you seriously think that just because of my religion I have no dignity? Do you really believe that I have no honor?

Give me a break. Surely you must agree that Ali Sina, whoever that may be, is a liar. Bless sins 00:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

We have secondary reliable sources for Muhammad, thus we can state his actions as fact. Where we don't have reliable sources, and general agreement, we attribute the source to its author. We don't have any secondary reliable sources for Ali Sina, or FFI.Bless sins 02:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, do you agree that Ali Sina makes false statements?Bless sins 02:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You said "What false statements does Ali sina make? Give me one example." I already gave you one example. He says "Muslims have no pride, no self esteem, no dignity, no honor."Defeating Islam Surely you must agree that the above statement of Ali Sina is completely false. Bless sins 17:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali Sina said "Muslims have no pride...". If we simply break that sentence down, we get: "Muslim" = no pride. "No pride" mean 0 pride. It disgusts me that you think Sina's "statement is generally true".

It's impossible for me to agree with you and Sina, that Muslims, in general, have no dignity, no honour.

It is like a white supremecist saying that "Blacks are generally inferior to whites, though not all black are inferior."

"I think we're going into debate now which I wont do." I think that's very difficult to do since you tend to agree with Sina's extremist views.Bless sins 18:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't possibly improve article by presenting teh views of an extremist as fact. In fact, the statements must be removed per WP:BLP.Bless sins 18:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

===============

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

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

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

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

Ramadan Riots, up for deletion

Hi there Matt. (Mr. 57?) I've seen a bit of your work on various Wiki articles on Islam and have been impressed. I could really use a vote of confidence to counter a semi-hysterical muslim petition to ban the article on the french Ramadan Riots. Check out the deletion talk page [2]. Thanks. TimothyHavelock 08:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User:72.88.165.163

Matt, I have started documenting the IP addresses being used as sockpuppets by a single user: [3]. Please feel free to add to the list if you find any more puppets pop up. It's only a matter of time before we find out if this IP range matches a known user. --ProtectWomen 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! The editor has insulted me directly in one of his edits, and I can see an abusive history over-all among all the known IP's used. This sock is very disruptive to the pages involved, most unfortunately.

By the way I think I will use your Wikiproject userbox, it looks very nice :) --ProtectWomen 22:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

No, Netscott is not an admin. You can check at Wikipedia:List_of_administrators. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

My reason for leaving Islam is quite simple

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

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

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

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

It seems like taqiyya, but what does he have to gain by saying he defected? Arrow740 05:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

LOL! Taqqiya. By the way, I told netooger or whatever that he doesn't own the template for good reason. I may have been too harsh, but my encounters with Messianics on Wiki hasn't been good. Also, using fuck as an intensive isn't something warnable. And don't be ridiculous. I'm not profusely critical of Judaism. That which you gave a link of, is a criticism of Christianity, not Judaism. Maybe you meant my anger towards certain passages in the Old Testament which talk about how the Israelites murdered and raped the native inhabitants of Palestine? That is a criticism of all three Abrahamic faiths. Please see this and this. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but the only people today looking to historical examples of that behavior as a model are Muslims, and that's the entire problem. Arrow740 06:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does that matter? The past still exists. So in 100 years, if Islamic extremism dies out, will that mean that arguments against Islam as violent would become invalid? Truth values are not temporal. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 09:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Also, gtfo.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 18:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Actually, there is. WP:STALK:

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

Stop annoying me.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 18:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirbymf, I'm not here to annoy you, please dont assume stuff. I'll be here though to make sure you are not taking out any valid content from WP. Thats not stalking. I'm waiting for you to take this to the admins. Why havent you done that till now? --Matt57 20:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny how you tell me not to assume stuff, yet you accuse me of taqqiya. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 18:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• please do not troll my talk page with contemptuous and aggressive remarks as you did here. please note the talk page etiquettes at the top of the talk page. thank you. ITAQALLAH 06:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

in fact, you've been doing this rather frequently of late. per this:

• Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

-- ITAQALLAH 07:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a personal attack there. Arrow740 07:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

you don't think accusing people of taqiyya is a personal attack? ITAQALLAH 08:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think if someone is obviously (or almost certainly) lying, pointing this out is not a personal attack. Arrow740 08:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

accusing someone of deception is a personal attack. Kirbytime is not a Muslim. harrassing him, as Matt and others have done, is just not on. ITAQALLAH 08:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

He says he loves Islam, calls terrorists freedom fighters, fights for the Holocaust article to be changed to alleged Holocaust, exclusively criticizes Judaism and Christianity, and hates Ali Sina. I think the evidence is pretty clear. What's the problem, anyway? Taqiyya is part of your religion, why are you implying that it is wrong? Arrow740 08:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

none of the things you listed makes him a Muslim. "He says he loves Islam", i don't believe so. i think you've been spending too much time at FFI. Taqiyya is not a part of Islam. and lying is not a part of Islam. ITAQALLAH 08:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The heart in his signature links to the article on Islam. I don't think you've been spending enough time at FFI. Lots of Muslims try to spread the message "Fear Allah and die Muslim" there, you could join them. Arrow740 09:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

This is getting more and more bizarre. My gosh, just because I'm not Muslim doesn't mean I cannot respect Islam. This is pissing me off, so I'm going to put my hearts in my sig just to prove my point.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 16:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirby, so you have a black heart for an athiest philosopher, how nice - figures. --Matt57 17:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The amount of anti-Muslim vitriol on this page as exhibited in Matt57 and Arrow740's stereotyping of Islam as an anti-Semitic, hateful religion is absolutely disgusting. You should be really ashamed of yourselves. Tiamut 18:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not antisemitic? Arrow740 03:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, I never came across you before. Where did you get the idea that I'm stereotyping Islam? If you are trying to show the positive side of Islam, can people not share different opinions? I think we are now talking beyond what Wikipedia says. Wikipedia is not a discussion board on Islam. If you have something to talk about relating to actual articles on Wikipedia, please go ahead otherwise please keep your accusations to yourself.--Matt57 19:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Lewis Quotation

Hi, I think this part is sufficient for that article and I don't want to violate copyright rule but you can find all of it. here You can add it if you'd like.Sa.vakilian(t-c)--12:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the beginning of that paragraph is necessary. Please do it yourself if you think it's necessary.Sa.vakilian(t-c)--12:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam and slavery lead

Dear interested editor:
Please visit here: [4] in the next few days and give your vote and your proposals on how the lead may be reworked and reformed to meet GA criteria before next nomination.DavidYork71 04:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Nietzche

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

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

Your Wikistalking is getting annoying

Congrats, you can look at my contribs. Notice how I edit articles wholly unrelated to Islam? I have better things to do than bicker over stupid religions, like help people out at ref desks check here, as well as help identify foreign language articles. When you call me a "troll" on the Talk:Child pornography page, doesn't it occur to you that such a thing is utterly self-defeating? Looking at your contribs, you have NEVER edited a single article pertaining to pornography. I have edited several, and I plan on doing more in the future. So tell me, how did you reach the talk page of that article, where I have a big ongoing discussion? There is absolutely no way you could have possibly stumbled onto that page except through my contribs. And what did you post there? You contributed ZERO to improving the article. All you did was slander me. This is the very definition of wikistalking. Also, you have followed me onto the talk pages of several users, and again slander me, when the issue is totally unrelated to you (again, check your contribs, you have never edited the Israeli apartheid article). It's not funny, it's not smart, it's a waste of MY time and YOUR time, stop harassing me, go make babies (ignore this if you are sterile), and leave me alone. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 19:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, no I'm not wikistalking. --Matt57 22:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You totally refuted me. Good job. I bet you're actually a Christian. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 22:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So is that what you mean by labelling him a munafiq (hypocrite)? Arrow740 22:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

??? I haven't labeled anyone a munafiq. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 23:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't bother me either way. I think people are too touchy around here. Arrow740 23:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime, what was your objective then of moving talk content between me and David Spart to a directory called "munafiqun" [5]? --Matt57 00:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's just a NAME. You want me to move it to User_talk:Kirbytime/gaysexorgy?--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 19:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirby, I'm not wrong when I say your conduct, language and demeanour will get you blocked here eventually. Anyway, the quote you left for me from the athiest philosopher was interesting.--Matt57 01:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Stop Wikistalking again[6][7] . Following me on articles you have never edited with the sole purpose of slander is not helpful to Wikipedia--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 19:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Islam and pork

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

List of books critical of Islam

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