Jump to content

User talk:Matt57

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xiao t (talk | contribs) at 06:07, 11 June 2007 (→‎Ali Sina). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives: --1--

AfD nomination of List of Muslims involved in a crime

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Muslims involved in a crime, has been listed by User:Abnn for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslims involved in a crime. Thank you.--Sefringle 20:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to advise that I have speedy deleted this article. Listings of criminals broken down by their religious backgrounds (or lack of such background) are divisive, offensive, and unacceptable. Your contributions are appreciated but please focus them in a somewhat different direction. Newyorkbrad 21:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to your question on my talk. Newyorkbrad 22:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aashish Khan

Thank you for your message. Ustad Aashish Khan and Aashish Khan (or Ashish Khan) is the same person. Ustad Aashish Khan has no son named Ashish Khan. Sarodiya 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sina

Why do you warn me when you yourself engage in the same activity? --MomoShomo 01:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to my understanding of the policies here, it is not my job to convince you or anyone else that he is not notable. It is your job to convince the community that he is notable. Quite obviously, this has not been done since this character does not have his own article. MomoShomo 01:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced after seeing the sources. This is simply an "internet bias". He is an internet-only personality and of course his forum followers would vouch for his supposed "notability" on other online communities such as Wikipedia. MomoShomo 01:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would do that, but he doesn't have a page. --MomoShomo 01:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these two pages do you want to gauge his notability by? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28web%29 MomoShomo 02:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that now. MomoShomo 03:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hunch MomoShomo is a sockpuppet. I just am not completely sure of who. Possibly Kirbytime.--Sefringle 04:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out I was right [1], except he is a sock of User:His excellency.--Sefringle 21:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

That was precisely my point. It makes no sense to have a page in a parent category when it is already in more specific categories. Use your common sense. Also you asked me to post about Ali Sina on the FFI page, and then you had a friend of yours close the debate. Please do not play games with me. MomoShomo 17:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the link additions [2] and have a few comments. First, I don't mind the RGJ link where she is the primary subject, but the one about her book is best at the book's article (and it is), so I will remove that. Likewise I don't think we should link to the publisher's page for the book since this is the article about Parvin Darabi, not her book. That link is also better at the book's article (as it is), so I may also remove that link.

I don't think the picture and audio links should be included as they are sort of no-value-added. If we want a current picture, we should upload one and replace the old picture of her as her article is not yet at the point of needing two pictures. I'm still thinking about the speech. We already have a link to her official website so I don't know why we should arbitrarily link to one of her speech transcripts. People can just go to her website and get a ton of stuff. But I'm not yet sure so I won't remove it. Tell me what you think, such as what it is about this particular speech that it should be singled out for use in the external links section. I really am inclined to just link to her official site and leave it at that.

As for the Montreal Mirror, I've never heard of it. It doesn't look like an RS and the article doesn't seem very significant. I oppose its inclusion in the external links section.

Anyway, thanks for contacting me about the edits. The Behnam 15:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I attempted to get them protected, however I believe I was rejected. I am unsure how the protection process works exactly. Take care --Enzuru 20:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:HomaDarabi.jpg

Matt, I'm sorry for being so late, see my reply at User talk:Iamunknown#Opinion needed, thanks. --Iamunknown 20:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are cool

Concerning this [3], did you read your own talk page? I explained the removals already. The audio doesn't add anything as there is already a transcript of the text, and there is an audio link at the transcript's page. It is repetitive, unnecessary, and undue weight. Matt, you need to realize that just because some atheist circles find her impressive doesn't mean that she is so important to the whole world, and her article will reflect her importance or lack thereof. Wikipedia isn't her homepage; the audio is no-value-added. The Behnam 03:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why we need the audio when there is already a transcript of the same speech. Now I will explain why it is repetitive. It is repetitive because it is just a repeat of the words of the transcript. The transcript is more useful as it can be run through translators, re-analyzed easily, copied, etc. The Behnam 17:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • "The audio is not repetitive because the emotions of the speech and the way the words are said cannot be laid out in text" - We aren't here to affect people emotionally with her views because of the NPOV policy. It is further repetitive because the audio link is easily accessible from the transcript page anyway.
  • "There's no rule which says if we have the Text link, we should get rid of the audio because its repetitive" - You are the one who wants this content, so you need to demonstrate the appropriateness and need for these things. You haven't done so yet but I am happy to work with you on it.
  • "If that was the case and if you think an audio is just a repetion of text, why do we have Spoken articles" - We have spoken articles to help the impaired or learners with Wikipedia articles, not to promote the 'emotion' of external speeches. For more info, please see [4].
  • "Further, you also deleted the picture link as well. Could you also explain that" - Please see my previous post here about that. Do you read my responses on your talk page in full? I've addressed a lot of these things already.
  • "I'm sensing that you strongly disagree with Parvin's views or what she stands for but that is not any reason to delete important information abot a person, especially when the article is already a stub" - This violation of WP:AGF has been noted. Please AGF. I don't know why you sensing this. I'm just working against NPOV and undue weight here; I don't know many specifics about her views. I'd probably disagree with some of them but that isn't relevant. Yet you think I'm pushing an agenda? Why do you think this? As the saying goes, "a thief knows a thief."
  • "You deleted a link from the Montreal Mirror too claiming that its not notable etc. Again, do not delete anything relevant again from this or any other page simply becuase you dont like their views." - As I mentioned before, this appears to be a minor newspaper with a crude website. The paper itself seems quite POV, and as I mentioned, I don't support relegating fringe or minor POV works to the external links section.

Now for something you never addressed. We already have a link to her homepage. A reader can visit this homepage and see all of the speeches they want. I asked you to tell me why we must single out this speech. Linking a speech for the heck of it is a bad precedent that could escalate to including an overwhelming number of external links, such as a link to everyone of her speeches or something like that.

Some things to keep in mind are WP:EXTERNAL and WP:NOT (such as not repository of links, no excessive linking). There is no need for us to include the audio link when it is accessible from the transcript page. Likewise there is no need to link to that speech when it is an accessible part of her official website. Also, we shouldn't have links that promote a website, so unnecessary linking to her personal page should be avoided. The Behnam 18:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the RGJ link is inappropriate under the WP:EXTERNAL#Links normally to be avoided criterion "Links mainly intended to promote a website." The Behnam 18:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Montreal Mirror "claims" that number of readers. As an alternative weekly with a website that isn't even fully functional, I doubt that it is an appropriate site to include as an external link. Generally external links must also comply with RS requirements which this paper, on account of being an alternative weekly and having a crude website, amongst other things, may not meet.
That "review" at RGJ is promotional in nature because of its strong and unquestioning POV in addition to directing readers to her foundation. It doesn't meet requirements. Please rely upon a guideline or policy-based argument in response this time. Thanks. The Behnam 19:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah and don't freak out if I don't get back to you on Parvin for a little bit. I'm kind of tired/bored of that particular dispute but I will get back to it in the near future. Have a good one. The Behnam 19:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jerry klein.jpg

Hello, Matt57. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Jerry klein.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Matt57/Jerry Klein. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 10:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal Mirror

I also read that source earlier. I'm not sure if the AAN is reliable as it may seek to promote such papers. It is also not clear where that information is taken from, such as how did they obtain that information. That's why I didn't put it in the article, though I won't object for now as it appears to be relatively harmless. The Behnam 19:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, AAN is not a reliable source because it is promotional. Consider its goals [5]:

  • "Supporting the marketing and advertising efforts of member newspapers" - It is trying to promote its members.
  • "Advocating the interests of the industry" - LOL, plainly admitting that it is promotional in nature.

Presenting the member (in this case Montreal Mirror) as reliable, legitimate, popular, etc fits perfectly into this promotional goal. We can't trust this too much, especially since we cannot verify its claims. There ya go. The Behnam 19:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. A site dedicating to promoting its members is not a reliable source on its members. Sorry. The Behnam 20:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"So whats your point? How does this connect to Parvin Darabi" - Is it supposed to connect? I just did some standard editing at that article after you wikilinked it to me. You apparently had objections and hence our dispute. I tried to keep the disputes independent which is why I gave them separate sections here. Anyway, if you realize now that a promotional group isn't an RS in this situation please undo your edits at Montreal Mirror. Thanks. The Behnam 20:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Like I said, the AAN is a RS for the Montreal Mirror" - How is it a reliable source? You need to provide a nullifying response to the arguments I have presented. I don't see you as having any; the promotional goals of that Association are stated plainly in their About page. You know, there is no shame in backing down when you are in the wrong. In any case it may still be possible to get a better source for that article. Cheers. The Behnam 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request re AN/I comment

Hi Matt. Could you please remove the parts divulging personal info from this comment at the AN/I? I believe it is part of WP:CIV#ICA. It is just called "appearance of impropriety". Thank you in advance. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know why that should be removed, this is actually information that should be made public fo the safety of kids, not hidden. But I removed it now since its not a big deal. The link to the applying CIV policy didnt work. Could you give that again? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Matt. Really appreciated. I fixed the link now. It was missing an A.
Well, you think about the safety of Kids which is a good thing. But this is Wikipedia and not a charity and Wikipedia cares alot about legal issues. I've just removed some personal info from my talk page today which have been made by a son against his father. Well his father had done worse yesterday and was blocked by an admin indeed. Wikipedia is not a battleground Matt. I know you know it and that you are not ignoring it but things like this happen and can be corrected for the good of every user here. Cheers. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Faysal, you are a good person. I try to be as cooperative as possible. Thanks for the story, I should be thankful to have a nice father. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khomeini

Please learn a bit more about the subject before pretending to know what you are talking about, as you did with categorization on the FFI page. MomoShomo 21:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


MomoShomo

Hi Matt57. Thank you for working so hard on the alphabetization over at List of notable converts to Islam. By the way, I have a question since you've been around here for a while... MomoShomo is obviously not a new user. I remember reading somebody's comments (maybe it was ALM) saying that the user admitted to having sockpuppets. Do you have any idea who MomoShomo might really be? MomoShomo came out of nowhere with two edits on May 13, then has been editing up a firestorm ever since. This user used a "sophisticated edit" (as Aminz would say) [6] and I still haven't figured out how to do that kind of revert edit. SO tell me- who who who is this mystery editor? --ProtectWomen 07:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping on top of this, Matt57. Again, I am always impressed by the work of Tom Harrison. --ProtectWomen 06:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homa Darabi

Thanks for putting the information in the right place. I'll keep an eye on both articles from now on. The Behnam 16:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His excellency is back

User_talk:Habibz -- this is one problem user who is on one serious Wikipedia jihad. --ProtectWomen 19:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In case you didn't know

For citing sources in the future, you can use the Wikipedia:Citation templates.--Sefringle 04:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

♥ Thank U ♥

Thanks for standing up for me recently. The times are much better now than they were years ago, but there is still a lot of prejudice against the gay community. I've been very offended lately by a few users and notice that you and others help me feel like there are straight people who understand. I REALLY appreciate it. You're an atheist? well, may the flying spaghetti monster bless you ;-) --ProtectWomen 18:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :d. Glad to be of help. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: David York

I left a note at the administrator' noticeboard about it. -- John Reaves (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not relevant?

In this edit, you removed valid RELEVANT sourced content from Wikipedia. Please explain how the removed content was not relevant. --Matt57 13:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not relevant because the source cited did not mention Islamophobia at all. A new source which then satisfied that criterion was found by another editor. I believe this is covered in the original research policy of Wikipedia. You should probably read the discussions on the talk pages before asking questions. And I apologize for the delay in my reply. Ibn Shah 01:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. The article doesnt have to have the word "Islamophobia" at all. There could be an article on "Trees" and I could cite a source which only mentions "Bark", but not the word "tree". That doesnt mean the source is not relevant. The only issue here is: Is the content being put in relevant to the article? And it was.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your analogy is not appropriate in this context. You cannot tell me that a person who makes argument A against idea B should be presented an article if idea B is not present within the original source at all. Then how do you know that the person is arguing against idea B? That would be like you writing a book against Islam, and then me taking the some of your arguments and using them against Christianity on Wikipedia. As valid as those arguments may be against religion X, it's still an original synthesis of ideas, and the original research policy forbids that. Ibn Shah 22:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Idea B was being represented in this case becuase 1) it was the same text before and after the reference change. 2) It was relating to Islamophobia. From your edits it seems like you're a seasoned user who has been editing bere before. Also interesting is the RV that came right after you had already reverted it 3 times. It looks like a calculated revertion from an anon IP sock to bypass the 3RR violation. I'm not 100% sure that that anon IP was you as well but that its very interesting that after 3 reverts of the same content removal by you, the 4th was from an IP. And in the end, the text stayed so all these efforts to remove the content were not useful. Ah, infact, if you look at the history of the article, there are a number of various IP edits (could be proxies by anonymous browsers) all focused on removing the content being removed by your username. Interesting. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't plague me with ridiculous theories unless you have proof. There are other people out there that may have the same opinion. In fact it was another editor who removed the section even before I did. "Seasoned Editor"? I've been reading discussions here for two months. Understanding how this place operates is really not that hard. Ibn Shah 01:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as I said, a 4th and even 5th and 6th reverts from anon IP's that come right after your 3rd revert are a little suspicious. You know that a 4th revert will violate the 3RR rule. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spurious allegations with no proof. Ibn Shah 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are definitely H.E. This has happened many times before.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know what you're talking about but perhaps you should provide some proof. Ibn Shah 01:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, your problem was that you said the content was not relevant. If it was not relevant before, why is it now? The text is still the same, isnt it? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant because an editor inserted a reference with that quote that discussed Islamophobia as well. The previous reference did not discuss Islam or Islamophobia. I really don't see why this is difficult for you to understand. Ibn Shah 01:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel you're another sock of His Excellency, but thats ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now. I'll ask you again: You had removed the content saying: "well sourced" does not matter when it is not relevant." . What exactly was not relevant? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It" is the quote that I removed at the time - obvious, is it not? Ibn Shah 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying the quote is not relevant because the referenced article doesnt mention "Islamophobia"? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quote was not relevant when the referenced article did not mention Islam or Islamophobia. The quote became relevant when a new referenced article discussed Islamophobia. Ibn Shah 01:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was the only place where the article discussed Islamophobia: "If passed, the Bill would "excite all sorts of expectations that no sensible Attorney General could ever meet", she said, warning it was "likely to make the existing problem of Islamophobia worse, not better". ". This was not the content you were removing before. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand what I am trying to say. I will leave it at that. Good day or night. Ibn Shah 02:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


So you think the quote is relevant now. ItaqAllah removed the quote now. Please reinsert the opinion as you thought the content was relevant. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 18:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry Matt, but assisting you in almost any way would be Ḥarām. Ibn Shah 18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if you were offended; that was not my intention. But, yes, I am frank. Ibn Shah 18:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ibn Shah, Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise. If you consider cooperating with other editors to be religiously forbidden, this may not be the right place for you.Proabivouac 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • please write my username how others write it, and that's Itaqallah. thanks. ITAQALLAH 19:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm in a habit of splitting up usernames. I do that for everyone, e.g. even for SlimVirgin. This makes the username more readable. This is what I'm used to doing. I dont see how that would be a big problem for you? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Itaqallah is very sensitive about how we spell his user name. Recently, he even tried to have Mike18xx banned for misspelling his name, claiming that he was somehow "abusive" against him: [7]. -- Karl Meier 19:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, well, yea. In any case ItaqAllah, you should AGF. This my style of addressing people, I split the username naturally, its just something I'm used to doing for everyone, not just you. That includes even BlessSins - another example. I dont see why this would be a problem for you? Please AGF. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
don't distort facts, Karl. Matt, please just respect my entirely reasonable request. i haven't assumed anything about you, so i don't know what WP:AGF has to do with this. ITAQALLAH 20:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask you again, whats the problem if do split the name? Why didnt you answer this question before? I told you I'm used to splitting names. I'll try my best not do that but often it will split by. Unless you tell me why this is a big problem for you, I might find it hard to be concious about it because to me, it doesnt matter. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe we're bickering about this. For whatever reason, some people have made sport of altering Itaqallah's username, and he doesn't like it. Nothing more to discuss.Proabivouac 20:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said that it was haram to help you because you said that you hate Islam. I do not understand why you are taking this personally. Ibn Shah 15:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Before I reply, can you clarify what you meant by this? "I've always had some questions in my mind about you but after seeing that you personally contacted Mr. Hasan to retreive his picture and insert the non-notable opinions of this really unknown user with no authority on Islamic matters (needless to say graduate assistant doesnt count), my questions were answered." SlimVirgin (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, before I reply, could you say what you meant by the above: "I've always had some questions in my mind about you but after seeing [etc] ... my questions were answered." What were the questions, and what was the answer? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My question was basically whether you were impatial to the subject of Islam, but it looks like you're not, but thats alright, neither am I. Either way, our opinions dont matter here, our edits do. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content was not deleted

Instead of a silly picture with an extremely large message, I moved the text into the rest of the writing and deleted the picture. No content except a random picture was deleted. All the text was still there, so please think (and read) before you accuse me of something. --Enzuru 04:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now it's about the picture, but yet in the reversion I see "(RV for deleting "black dog is evil" hadith)". I didn't take that ahadith out, so it seems after accusing me of something you change the reason that the picture was the issue, not the text. Like I said before, I took it out because having a small picture with tons of text that could just be merged into the body was ridiculous. However, perhaps I should have just kept the picture. Either way, it seems you've expected me of some religious zealousness. --Enzuru 04:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FFI image

I noticed you uploaded the FFI screenshot [8]. However, in my opinion, it would be better if we had the main page screenshot, rather than the news page screenshot.--Sefringle 08:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

Please add a full citation for your source. We need the publisher, and without knowing which edition, we don't know what page 53 refers to. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please say which edition. The hardback and paperback versions will have different page numbers; no reason readers should have to track it down themselves via the ISBN number. Which version did you take the quote from? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, its paperback. I got this ref from Google books, by the way. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not what the quote says in the Rees book. It also makes clear that Rees thinks the date is wrong. Is there a reason you didn't correct the edit? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry I didnt notice he wasnt sure about the date. I was about to RV to your original version when I saw you did the needful. thanks a lot. I'm amazed at how much you work for this website. I saw a show on TV about ants and how industrious they were. It was about Siafu ants. There you go, you're a Siafu ant, carrying little bits of information here and there. But yes seriously, it is just unbelievable how much work some editors put into this website. It really is like an ants colony, except not all of the ants work equally hard (like me). --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:FFI-logo.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:FFI-logo.png. 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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 06:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia

All sorts of neologism problems with this phrase, all the fault, IMHO, of who's ever job it was to come up with an English -ism word for Islam by now, which every other major religion has (except Christianity in toto, but the large sects all do). Not an edit war I'd care to by involved in! -- Kendrick7talk 19:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim

I'm not sure if you're going to answer these questions, but I thought I would ask anyway. Have you ever met a Muslim? Do you any person who is a good person and a Muslim too? Ibn Shah 19:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and ...yes, for sure, a couple. I wouldnt like to go in details, we're not allowing to debate and discuss other stuff here so thats all I can say. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure that as long as we continue to contribute to this encyclopedia, we would not be punished for having such a discussion. Ibn Shah 18:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on User:Mike18xx

Hi Matt. As you have participated at the ANI discussion regarding the behaviour of the abovementioned user, i just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on themselves in response to the concerns raised during the discussion at the ANI and their avoidance to solve the issue. The RfC is located here. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify things Matt. I've never dealt w/ Kirbytime problems. I am almost 90% away from articles you use to edit guys. At the opposite, this user and i have been directly involved in a discussion at an AfD when meatpuppeting occured. In Kirby's case i was for a 6 month block at the case at the ANI thread before shifting to indef. Don't you remember my stance at Kirbytime's case? So there's no big similarities in there. I honestly believe i treated both cases fairly. All i've been asking from this user is to acknowledge his wrongdoings and promise no to do them again.
Now, after being away for a couple of days, this user came back and continued editing as nothing have occured. This is wikipedia and we got rules. He seems not to be aware of how things work here. I've asked him twice to comment on his faults but in vain. So what do you want from me to do? Smile? If i have had blocked him on the spot after the MEAT and the CIVIL stuff than you'd have been argued that i was unfair to him. No, i've asked him to acknowledge them and give us a promise. He abstained and ignored calls. So, i've opened an RfC instead in order to hear different arguments but telling me that Mike18xx has stopped and that my RfC filling is not proper than i must totally disagree. I gave him many chances to continue commenting at the ANI. Didn't i? I've just blocked a vandal yesterday indef after a request from a user i totally disagree w/. And please tell me Matt, has Mike18xx really discussed why he MEATed and INCIVILed at the ANI? No, never. So why wouldn't he do that at an RfC? Cheers. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think people have to say "Ok, I'll stop". They just have to stop the disputive behavior though so I think Mike has stopped. I agree making that thread on a forum he made may be questionable, but does it really violate any policies? I didnt see any policy that prohibits doing this on external sites. [9]. If there's any policy like that and Mike violates it repeatedly, then I support action. I've supported the ban of DavidYork and I even went on to say that I'm going to hunt this guy's sock puppets even though some of his edits on Islam were very good (in my opinion), but I supported his ban (after I found out that he likes Hitler and fought to keep a picture of the Swastika on his user page). About Kirbytime, well, consider your mild support for blocks for someone who was a completely vicious expert troll, and your over-reaction to a mild personal attack by Mike (middle eastern). Tell me if thats consistent. I would have really liked if you brought the hammer down on Kirbytime 10 times harder than you did on Mike18xx but I didnt see that happen. I didnt even you see you clarify other people's (Aminz, BlessSins) surprised comments like "I dont know he was blocked, he was a good editor". I didnt see you respond to these people and tell them why Kirby was a troll or why he was blocked, didnt see you help out the blocking admin there. I think this is bad faith cause you know it seems to me that maybe your nominations/actions were atleast partially based on the editor's view of Islam, rather than what they actually did. But anyway, I think the bottomline again is, that mild personal attack by Mike is not enough for an RfC although it does seem that after this RfC, he'll likely stop even those mild attacks, which ofcourse is always good. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The personal attack has not been an issue for me and i already stated that at the ANI. I just don't care. But due to his blocklog history, he's already been blocked because of that and so mentioning the violation is worthy for the RfC. Single acts may be considered as not important. However, meatpuppeting mixed w/ personal attacks plus abstaining from acknowledging them is a big issue. Remember Proabivouac words at the ANI. I've been more than patient. I think the issue is sorted out. I've answered at the RfC talk page. Cheers mate. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the past 9 months, he's only been blocked once. Thats pretty good. All his other past blocks were before that in the beginning. It looks like he's more aware of the policies now. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you are kidding me or just being mislead Matt. He's been away for the same amount of time (exactly 9 months). You should have said that he only was blocked once this month to be accurate. Anyway, things are sorted out for now. Forget about that. Another admin beat me to block the sock of Kirby. There was no need for an ANI. Socks of banned users are blocked on the spot w/o needing to inform the ANI. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really, well, I honestly didnt know he had been away in all those months. I see it now, yes. Well, after all these blocks and an RfC if a user still doesnt know how to abide by policies and keep editing here, they'll get what they deserve then and I'll definitely support such a block. Anyway, good to know that its been sorted now. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I just don't understand how you have defended his case all this time since a month now w/o paying attention to very important and essential details such as his blocklog and the edit summaries of the blocking admins. If you have just spent 1 minute (no more) verifying my allegations you'd have endorsed my summary at the RfC or saved us some time at the ANI. Again, forget about it and happy editing. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

problems with Ibn Shah and List of notable former Muslims

hey just a heads up, keep an eye on this guy will you?I see you dealt with him in the past. anyway he deleted many of my entries which were SOURCED and claimed I was a vandal. In fact due to his accusations I was blocked! The man can't stand anything that can remotely be taken against Islam! He's taking everything on that page as a personal attack! Yo I'm out good luck dealing with him. EuroBrydGang

Ali Sina

"Ali is notable, has coverage in Asia Times, see page for FFI" - How many times are you going to try that excuse? The threshold for notability here is whether or not he has his own article, not whether there's a random news article written about him. Everyone else on these conversion lists and list of former *whatever lists has their own article. Ali Sina is no exception to this rule. Ibn Shah 15:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

Stalking is prohibited . Making baseless threats is prohibited too. Stop. Xiao t 06:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matt57&oldid=137400647"