User talk:Mustafaa
The future of Islam
If you want to delete it, go ahead. I was trying to balance the claims of Muslim triumphalists and the "Islam is headed for the garbage can" folks. We've seen a tug of war in the article going on for many months between these folks and I thought that bringing it out into the open would help. But if you don't think it will suppress flames ... Zora 00:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Persistent vandalism by Urchid
User urchid and his possible sockpuppet 4.158.211.175 are doing nothing but committing vandalism of the encylopedia by inserting their hatred towards Islam (in Islam article and the discussion section). Perhaps you want to check this out and maybe push for protection of the Islam article. Anonymous editor 19:18, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think that's necessary at this stage. Let's see what happens. - Mustafaa 19:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please refrain from hijacking and vandalizing articles to spread islamist propaganda - anon.
I've listed comprehensive reasons for my edits in talk before I removed anything. Please see talk. I wouldn't mind discussing this either. Zionist terrorism doesn't redirect, it is actually a duplicated article of Israeli terrorism. It also needs to be cleaned up. Regards,
Guy Montag 01:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We are waiting for your opinion in the discussion page on whether to move Israeli terrorism to State terrorism. Hope to hear from you soon.
Guy Montag 09:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nadooshan
He is well known nationally. They print memorial coverages in newspapers every year about him. I think it should be translated.--Zereshk 04:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Question re Arabic plural
Dear Mustafaa,
I recently ordered a old and expensive book on the geography of the Abbasid caliphate, in order to solve the nagging question about the derivation of Ahwaz or Suq al-Ahwaz. Southern Comfort and Zereshk were insisting that Ahwaz was a form of Khuz or Huz. That didn't seem plausible on the face of it, and they couldn't give any reason for it other than a quote from an Arab geographer writing five centuries later. Well, in 1905 a British professor, Le Strange, writes that "Ahwaz" is the Arabic plural form of Khuz. Since he was translating from Arab chroniclers, one assumes that he knew Arabic -- but I still find that assertion a little hard to believe. There seems to be only one sound in common between the two words, the z. I understand that Arabic forms plurals by changing the vowels inside a tri-consonantal root, or sometimes by adding an -in suffix, right? Is Le Strange's assertion reasonable?
If Ahwaz is indeed an Arabic plural form for Khuz, we may have been having this problem because none of the people involved know any Arabic.
BTW, I continue to have problems with the various Khuzestani and Elamite articles. That's all I'll say about it. I tried to involve you earlier, but you are busy, and I hate to call on you too often. I just wish somebody had responded to the two RFCs I posted. Zora 08:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Iranians go thru 7 years of Arabic in school, and one or two semesters in College. They know Arabic well enough. In fact modern Arabs know little about Sarf wa Nahw, whereas Iranians are mandatorily trained in that area (i.e. "Classical Arabic").
- I find it unfortunate that after providing literally a mountain of evidence, Zora still insists on the "Arabic root of Ahvaz". If that is not ignorance and bigotry, then what is?--Zereshk 08:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ethnic politics
Responded to your comment on Talk:Ethnic politics of Khuzestan. I suggest presenting both POV's (as regards the foundation of the emirate). Obviously there were differences between the rule of Jabir and Khaz'al, and I do not wish to argue over definitions of what constitutes an 'emirate' and whether Jabir was an emir so forth, as both POV's are well documented. What do you think? By the way, it would be appreciated if you could add any additional info to Msha'sha'iya. Kasravi also wrote a wonderful book about them, however it will take me some time to get ahold of it. SouthernComfort 21:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll look into it. I don't know much about the issue, but fortunately alwaraq.com has a very good library... - Mustafaa 21:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I would appreciate whatever help you could provide, as my Arabic isn't all that great, thus limiting me to primarily Persian language sources. Though I have a number of Khuzestani Arab friends in Iran who have expertise in this subject and will be helping me gather and translate as many sources as we can find. Zora has continually attacked me as a racist (!) and anti-Arab bigot, and considering my Khuzestani background (and I have many Iranian Arab relatives and friends) and my attempt to provide an accurate portrait of Khuzestani Arab history and current reality, it's becoming very frustrating and offensive. You seem to be very NPOV and whatever assistance you could provide would be great. SouthernComfort 22:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey there -- could I ask you to take a look at my recent edits on Terrorism?
I fixed the balanced-example problem people claimed to be concerned about, but POV editors are massing the troops. Could I ask you to take a look and add your thoughts to the discussion? BrandonYusufToropov 01:46, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Muhammereh
Is Muhammereh the correct Arabic transliteration, or is it Muhammerah? In Khuzestan I've always heard it referred in the former sense. The most common form on the Internet is Mohammerah, which I think is the Persian form. I'm also curious about the meaning. Thanks. SouthernComfort 05:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Tunisia, again (day or night)
Hey, Mustafaa. I inadvertantly noticed that someone has placed an historical overview narrative in the lead paragraph. I restored the original lead, moved it to the history preview section and integrated with what was there, wikified, etc. Perhaps you could take a glance at it and make sure everything is (historically and chronologically) in order. I edited it somewhat in haste. All the best, El_C 23:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No problem. - Mustafaa 00:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, Mustafaa. El_C 08:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for contributions to Khuzestani articles and also for your recent edit in Qur'an, on literary Arabic. Says it perfectly and should prevent future problems with educated Arabic-speakers not understanding section re language of Qur'an. Zora 02:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Personal Attacks/vandalism by anon IPs (217.123.137.115 and many more) or likely enviroknot
A user using anonymous IPs (most likely enviroknot) has been making personal attacks against me with the IP address in both the Saudi Arabia and Jihad articles. See edit history.
He also seems to have a problem with my conversion to Islam as he posted this on my user page: As a former Muslim, I understand you feel the need to defend Islam.However, it is completely indefensible. Please be advised that I will oppose you at EVERY turn because my eyes have been opened and the mysoginistic goals of the false prophet Mohammed (piss be upon him) must be opposed at every turn, for the good of the world and for the good of all women who would be free of the slavery that is Islam.
I request that you take the appropriate measures to stop this user's and also his persistent vandalism of article and talk pages. He has used the exact same wording and tactics as enviroknot so he is probably just another sockpuppet of enviroknot.Thank you for your help.--Anonymous editor 02:55, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Afrocentrism
Hi Mustafaa, I just want to say that I welcome your contributions to the Afrocentrism page. Deecee is, I find, very difficult to argue with because of her highly entrenched views. But I hope you will persist in helping us to sort out the most appropriate and useful terminology for North African peoples. The problem is, I feel, that discussion of race is so riddled with confusing and contradictory terminology that it's very difficult to find terms that can command a consensus. I feel that Deecee, like other some other Amercians I've discussed this with tends to assume that the very idiosycratic ideas about race prevelant in America are universally held worldwide, or that if they aren't that's because everyone else hasn't caught up yet! Paul B 13:24 14 June, 2005 (UTC)
Request for help
I was blocked earlier today by User:Inter, apparently for reverting the talk page for this IP, which, as I explained to everyone else at the time, was done because this IP is shared by thousands of people as an university proxy.
As you can see from the history, User:DJ Clayworth is in clear violation of the 3RR rule, also here where User:Sjakkalle joins in the edit war.
I understand that I may also have been in violation, but the policy states that "In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally.", which Inter clearly did not.
It may be claimed that their reverts did not count, because they were reverting vandalism, but in fact, this only applies to Wikipedia:Simple vandalism and my edits did not fall into that category, though I was accused of vandalism by DC Clayworth and others, which goes against Wikipedia:No personal attacks. In the case of Sjakkalle, my request that a comment be referenced was repeatedly ignored, he kept on reverting, claiming "vandalism" and then gave up. --137.205.192.27 18:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This anonymous user has been putting in "alleged" all over holocaust related articles, implying that the facts in the article are pure speculation. Inserting misinformation in an article does constitute vandalism. I doubt also that the anon in question is a newbie, because he has been sending 3RR warnings to the users he has warred with. I would like to assume good faith, but here I think that the user in question is deliberately trying to coax other users into running afoul of the 3RR. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- In fact, I put alleged in ONE place, relating to Hitler. Your above statement is implies that I was denying the holocaust, when in fact I did not dispute the holocaust, but rather pointed out the ambiguity in the main cause of it. This is not misinformation, it was an attempt at NPOV, admittedly perhaps not a very good one. Either way, it does not constitute simple vandalism, revertion of which is exempt from the 3RR rule. Also, your main revert warring was when I removed an unverifiable, irrelevant and unreferenced claim from a holocaust article. Despite my requests for a citation and explanations of why I had done the edit, you continuously reverted, either with no explanation, or claiming "vandalism" and "bias", which are personal attacks. I also did not send "3RR warnings", I pointed out ONCE to DJ Clayworth that he was close to infringing the 3RR rule, and I did not "war" with anyone, i was trying to NPOV an article- it seems you were the one with war in mind. Besides that, even if I were trying to "coax" users into 3RR violation, admins of all people should be able to avoid getting drawn in and take appropriate action. --137.205.192.27
- For a highly sensitive topic such as the Holocaust, I strongly urge you to attempt to discuss any edits in detail on the talk page first. You're clearly not new to Wikipedia, so you may have come across this principle before; if not, it will save you and others many headaches. - Mustafaa 19:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for a clear headed response, finally. In future I shall do as you say. I still think the others behaved badly.. but nevermind. --137.205.192.27 20:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Palestine portal
As soon as I started editing it Mr. Humus Sapiens started removing the in the news section because he thinks it's too "anti-Israel". This is amazing, even a portal is not free of POV-pushing.Yuber(talk) 05:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Re: block
There isn't one. I blocked him for 2 hours for him to calm down. Blanking a page, especially when its a talk page full of evidence of past vandalism, isn't a good thing. That was my reason for the short block. If he wishes to complain about it, I'd suggest he take it up with me directly, but as he was a vandal, complaining to somebody else about it sounds like a viable option for him. Thanks for your inquiry. Inter\Echo 07:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The reason I complained to "someone else" was so that a 3rd party who was not involved in the dispute could mediate. Also I think your previous behaviour was unjust, so why would you respond justly to my complaint. You have also called me a vandal again, which is yet another violation of WP:NPA, please stop. Also the talk page has no evidence of vandalism, merely accusations, which I strongly dispute. And why did you only block me, the policy is ""In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally." --137.205.192.27 10:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
VfD
Thought you might want to vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Blackcats 09:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jaffa
We seem to be disputed over the definition of the link. Is it a Propoganda (If I missppell this word I'll be happy to learn the correct spelling) site or not. As the site gives a very Narrow and one sided version of the citie's history, and claims that it is under occupation, it is a propoganda site. I am willing to accept the term occupation regarding the "Territories" occupied in 1967. Jaffa, however is a part of the state of Israel as recognized by the UN in 1947. If this link is to remain in the article at least we can warn about the nature of the site it links to. Can we come to a civilized agreement? All I want is a NPOV good article. I have contributed the picture I took in Jaffa of the Jaffa port and I really care for this article. Almog 21:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for replying in my talk page. Please see my comment in the Jaffa talk page. Almog 05:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Abraham
Here's Noitall again, now he's claiming that Christianity doesn't view Abraham as the ancestor of the Arabs.Yuber(talk) 23:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Elamite Empire
Hi. I was about to leave a comment on Zereshk's talk when I noticed your comments and I would like to say something. I completely understand where you are coming from, but Zora is the one who is attempting to create controversy here. Originally there were only two quotes in the article, at the top of the page. Two quotes, both of which are relevant to the article in question. Neither quote says anything about the ethnic character of the Elamites. She originally deleted them (as well as the sentence contributed by Emilyzilch) based upon her false accusation that I (and Zereshk) had claimed the Elamites were Persian. Now, there is nothing wrong with including relevant quotes in an article, and it's one thing to move those quotes to somewhere more appropriate in the article, but to delete them outright and then to attempt to politicize the article by bringing in this idea of "histiography and nationalism" and calling historians (all non-Iranian at that) "nationalist" - this is totally against the spirit of WP and considering your opinion on the matter, I do not believe you would condone such acts.
But it's important to make clear that Zora is the one attempting to transform the article into a political battleground and she made similar claims about there being "controversy" over the name Ahvaz (in reality, there being no controversy). IMHO, if she wants to counter what is already in the article (i.e. providing POV's from opposing scholars) and no one else has any opposition to this, then that's something. But to delete relevant and legitimate information and to declare her intention to "completely" rewrite the article is not only disruptive and against the spirit of WP, but provokes edit war. It's not right and again, I do not believe that you condone this sort of disruptive behavior. But her behavior (and her history of antagonizing both Zereshk and myself) should be recognized for what it is. SouthernComfort 12:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ed Poor has been kind enough to nominate me for an adminship
...which I think will go a long way toward resolving unproductive disputes pages he and I both edit. Anyone who is interested in voting one way or the other is invited to the discussion here. BrandonYusufToropov 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jihad article
Same problems again after article has been unprotected. Anon IPs/enviroknot persist certain disputed sections should be added. See edit history. Call to re-protect. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 00:04, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Lebanese
I thought using the word "variety" was more NPOV as you had said before in another article, so that's why I changed dialect to variety.Yuber(talk) 00:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- In general I agree, but when there's a relatively high-profile debate as here, I think it's better to mention both sides. - Mustafaa 00:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Re: Afrocentrism
Thank you for your help. - Mustafaa 02:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- All in the line of duty. Kelly Martin 02:24, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Indigenous peoples
Look at Category talk:Indigenous peoples for some background. I had the same primary reaction but I thought CJJLWright's arguments were pretty convincing. I'd be curious to know your thoughts. — mark ✎ 07:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Mustafaa, I have also responded at Talk:Tuareg with a rather too long dissertation, and included the external references I used in associating Tuareg with the indigenous category. Let me know what you think, thanks. --cjllw | TALK 09:06, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
User:Yuber at State of Palestine
Mustafaa, I'm at a loss as to how to deal with User:Yuber; his preferred method of editing seems to be inserting his own POV into articles, or deleting information he doesn't like, and then revert warring. His latest edits at State of Palestine appear to me to be POV and inaccurate, and remove simple facts. I suspect he might respect any comments or edits you might make; would you be willing to take a look? Regards, 20:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BrandonYusufToropov's rfa
I saw that you voted yes and I was curious about what you thought. I have found that he is sometimes oriented towards a strong Sunni view. Do you see this or... I'm just curious. It seemed to me that such a demeanor (which could have gotten better) and not that many edits (nor that many of great size) and the circumstances of an rfa from an argument seemed a little odd... I typically trust your opinion, so I more or less want to know why you voted the way you did. gren 01:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, he was correct in not making Qur'an alone seem unwarrantedly popular but I didn't think he cited his very anti-the-group statements well. It's not that he's a bad user, but I find him to be somewhat biased and not experienced enough, and I'm not sure that what he has done puts him over the threshold into good admin land. As for User:Edip Yuksel... I hope he can write a decent article about it but... I am skeptical... Oh, and about Edip Yuksel, is he less notable than Rashad Khalifa? gren 02:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Amazon says he has Mor mektuplar out and is the editor of The Qur'an : A Reformist Translation which is about to come out. I think it's more than vanity... and, since I'm semi-inclusionist oriented I'd say that's enough. But, it's very borderline. gren 03:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Palestine page
Awesome - thanks for your effort, hopefully we'll be filling it up... ! Ramallite (talk) 20:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Quick Hello
Perhaps this isn't the forum to do this, but as there's no Private-Message type feature I can find... Just wanted to say hi and thanks for the welcome, much appreicated. Nice to know that someone's reading :) Also, thanks to Mark for removing the double-post, didn't even notice. Lance
Thanks
Hi, Mustafaa. I just wanted to say thank you for starting those two Wikiportals (Algeria and Palestine). Great work! Danny 00:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Algerian civil war
Mustafaa, I went to take a look at the article. It seems thorough -- so thorough, in fact, that about half-way through my eyes glazed over and I had to skim through the rest. I think it could use some copyediting to make it more accessible. Perhaps some items spun off into subsidiary pages. But I can't do that now. It seems like good, solid work, and a decent explanation for something that has always seemed like a bit of "noise" in the news to me. Funny, innit, how some minor conflicts get lots of media time, and major ones are all but invisible. Zora 00:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
New Arabic linguistics article
Musy, I started a new article—List of traditional Arabic place names. Would you like to get involved? ^^ I got tired of other editors mangling the detailed Arabic linguistics I put up (deleting diacritics such as emphatic dots, etc.). - Gilgamesh 28 June 2005 04:17 (UTC)
More POV
Same pro-Indian, highly anti-Islamic opinionated paragraphs are being pushed on the Islam and other religions. Please check this out. Thanks.--Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 21:36 (UTC)
Talk:Regions of Mauritania
maybe you can help on my question on Talk:Regions of Mauritania or you know someone who can help.
Tobias Conradi (Talk) 29 June 2005 11:07 (UTC)
Wikimania
Hiya
I sent you a message by wikimail. Please could you answer it quickly or inform me if you did not get anything ? Thanks. Anthere
Striver
Striver has been very busy lately and I am feeling overwhelmed! He is making unilateral moves (such as Aisha to Aisha binte Abu Bakr and working very hard to include Shi'a invective in the articles of every early Islamic historical figure on the Shi'a hit list. His sources are Shi'a hadith, which he regards as being pure history, not to be doubted. This results in articles starting with material like "He was a bastard and the son of a bastard." It's not only that he is incredibly POV -- he can't WRITE. His contributions are ungrammatical, misspelled, and garbled to the point of incomprehensibility. All the Muslim editors seem to have settled down to enjoy the skirmishing at jihad, Islam, and the other high-visibility articles, and I feel as if I were the only one monitoring the early Islamic history articles.
What is the answer? Perhaps an Islamic history editors list? A place to post POV alerts? Zora 30 June 2005 01:00 (UTC)
Naming conventions
Hi! What do you think of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages)#Proposed addition? Cheers, — mark ✎ 30 June 2005 12:15 (UTC)
ReHi!
Salam Mustapha, It looks like you found a new occupation, your are doing a great job, I appreciate it, good luck - Firas --Firas@user 30 June 2005 15:09 (UTC)
I revised Sahaba
Hope you can take a quick look at it and perhaps help to defend this (hopefully, closer to NPOV) version against revert efforts that may materialize. BrandonYusufToropov 3 July 2005 09:45 (UTC)
I know you're busy with Muhammad, but ...
Could you please take a look at the ongoing dispute at Sahaba? Many thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 4 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)
Yeshua
Hi, I'd be interested to hear your views on Yeshua. Kuratowski's Ghost 4 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)
I have reported Miskin for violating WP:3RR at Extinct language. At the moment he's only reverted List of extinct languages 3 times, but let's keep an eye on him. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 4 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)
Watersheds
Don't know if you've already seen it: I posted some links to more detailed watershed maps of Algeria at the reference desk. Lupo July 6, 2005 06:48 (UTC)
Hello
I'd like to give you a belated thanks for your welcoming me to this site. But I have a slight problem. There seems to be a User named Jayjg who keeps following me around on any article and rolling back my edits even when the articles are totally unrelated. For example, it is well-known that the Ottoman's caliphate was disputed by many Arabs yet he even rolled that back.Heraclius 6 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)
Actually, the articles you edit are all on my watchlist. In fact, I've edited most of them long before you created this particular userid. And Mustafaa, your thoughts on User:Heraclius's edits would be most welcome. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)
- No offense, but I'm pretty sure that you're lying. I checked the history of the "History of Islam" article (and even clicked on the 500 button) and I saw that you hadn't even made ONE single edit before I started editing it. There's no way in my opinion that you have that article on your Watchlist. Heraclius 7 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)
Neverthless I do take offense at your accusation that I am lying. I don't have to edit an article to add it to my watchlist; there's a tab for it right at the top. I've edited many articles related to Islam, and have many more that I haven't edited on my watchlist. Jayjg (talk) 7 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)
Could use some more linguists' input
Can you check out what's going on at Extinct language, and look at the NPOV argument on its talkpage, and perhaps also weigh in on the proposal to move the page (on Talk:Extinct language) to Dead language instead? Thanks. Tomer TALK July 6, 2005 23:46 (UTC)
Hey there, I was wondering if you could help me out with this. There was no mention of the road map for peace in this article and I tried to include it but somehow people think it is "biased" and "pov" to mention the road map. I find it very alarming that any mention of working for peace in the region is somehow "biased".Heraclius 7 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)
- I find it very alarming that you can't honestly characterize what the actual disagreement is about. Jayjg (talk) 7 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)
Wikiportals
Hi Mustafaa. Thanks for the idea. I had a look at Algeria's and found it pretty developed. Great job. I am just being a bit busy lately and feel not being able to concentrate some efforts in order to collaborate to such project for the time being. I hope to be ready by August. Cheers -- Svest July 7, 2005 20:30 (UTC)
Tupac
Can you verify the legitimacy of the translation of "Shakur" given in the opening of Tupac Shakur? Thanks. -Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 18:20 (UTC)
Changes to Palestine Article
Hi Mustafaa, You just edited my contribution to the article on Palestinians. Which is fine, since it means (I hope) a chance to learn from you.
You pointed out that there are Maronites in Palestine. I had known that, in fact, but I reckoned their numbers too small to warrant mention. That's not to slight anyone: It's necessary to set some threshold, else you'd face the impossible task to make the list exhaustive. Well, perhaps I could have qualified my shortlist by refering to significant minorities. OTOH it could also be that the Maronites are important, and that I am mistaken. So tell me, what portion of the Palestinians are Maronite?
Another point which surprised me even more was to learn was that not all Palestinians are Arab speaking. Just who are these non-Arabic speakers and, if they are important, then why don't you also correct the introductory sentences, which describe the Palestinians as an Arab people? For if Arabs aren't defined by language, then what does define them? Certainly not religion or historical experience..
Thanks for your time. I hope I hear from you! --Philopedia 8 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)
Striver
Striver has become more and more active in the Islam-related articles, and extremely insistent on having his own way, reverting multiple times. He has been adding and re-adding the "info" that there were 100,000 companions in Sahaba and now he's got a bee in his bonnet that Ali ibn Abu Talib was born in the Kaaba. He has reverted at least three times in the Ali article, despite multiple people telling him to STOP. As an admin, could you invoke the 3RR rule against him? If he would just editing for a while, we could clean up some of the damage -- like his version of Muawiya I, which contains gems like:
Muawiyah was born (c. 602), his mother being the prostitute Hinda who was famous for eating Hamza's liver after the battle of Badr.
If you feel that you are too involved in the Islamic articles to be neutral in this matter, whom do you recommend I approach? Zora 8 July 2005 23:00 (UTC)
Zora
i Know... :(
Its my whay to tell her that her pov is not relevant...
I have already given her AMPEL evidence of that, look att the talk page of Ali ibn Abu Talib
For your conviniace, i will copy the most important parts:
Fatimah bint Asad was circumbulating the Ka'ba when she was carrying Ali (a.s.). The wall of Ka'ba cracked to create an opening and she entered it to give birth to Ali (a.s.). Al-Mustadrak 3:483.
apparently the wahabis try to fill the crack up but it no matter what they do the crack still shows up! if abu bakr or umar were born there they would have put a sign post there!!
Well I am a Sunni and u said that our Imam Ali and our HAzrat Ali born in holy Kaba... It is right and it shows the dignity of Ali (shia site)
Hazrat Ali razialahutalaanho He is the personality who given the name sherekhudafrom ALLAH.And he is the personality who won the battel of khaiber,and took the roots off that door called darekhaibar.And he has one more speciality that is he accept islaam in his childhood. He was born in the KABA> (sunni site)
History has recorded that he is the only person who was born inside the Kabah itself.: HAKIM IBN HAZM (sunni site)
As you see, i have proven with direc links that "Both Shia and Sunni agree on that someone was was born inside the Kaba. All Shia and some Sunni say it was Ali, some Sunni say it was Hakim ibn Hazm."
Dont you agree that she is wrong for not alowing this information to be in the articel?
--Striver 8 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)
Dear brother, we both know that everything is not in Bukhari and Nahj al Balagha. It suffices to show that people bother to write it on their webpages to confirm that they belive it.
For example, take a look att this: http://www.yazehra.com/fatimabint.htm
Does that not prove that shias [1] and sunnis [2] BELIVE that somebody was born in it?
Does not "He was born in the Sacred House (i.e. the Kaba) in Mecca" [3] from one of the most prominent shia sites on the webb constitute proof of belife ?
The site [4] claiming that hakim-ibn-hazm was born ther is not a simple site, it sure proofs that Sunnis BELIVE it?
--Striver 8 July 2005 23:41 (UTC)
Here, more proof :
- "40. Do you mean to say that the Sacred Mosque owes its exalted position to Ali because he was born inside of it?
- 'Yes! That certainly is our logical belief! History records that, one day, Ali's pregnant mother, Fatima Binte Asad was caught in an emergency child-birth situation just when she was by Kaba's Sacred Mosque. Her labour pains started and she didn't know what to do. Just then, she heard a voice inviting her to take shelter inside the Sacred Mosque. But, how could she go in? The door was locked! Just then, a wall miraculously split open to afford her entry. Once she was inside, the wall closed, and soon Ali was born. Not only was Ali born in the Sacred Mosque, but he also died a martyr decades later when struck with a poisoned sword while praying in a mosque.
- As an Ismaili Muslim I am shocked every time I.... [5]
See, even Ismaili Muslim belive it!
--Striver 8 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)
No, unfortunaly i dont :(
Im searchig for some more referenes for you :)
Ma salam!--Striver 8 July 2005 23:55 (UTC)
Better Proof
Salam again, dear brother!
In the famous shia book Peswar night we find:
- Hakim in his Mustadrak and Nuru'd-din Bin Sabbagh Maliki in his Fusulu'l- Muhimma, Fasl I, p.14, say: "No one before Ali was born in the Ka'ba. This was a distinction given to Ali in order to enhance his honor, rank, and dignity." [6]
Proof enough? There you have three sources in one, One famous shia book, and two sunni scholars.
Remeber, im not saying its is factual, mi saying both shia and sunni BELIVE that SOMEONE was born in the kaba.
--Striver 9 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)
Peswar nights:
- On the 20th of Ramadhan, when Ali was on his death bed following the attack by Abdu'r-Rahman Ibn Muljim Muradi, he asked Imam Hasan to call in the Shia who had gathered at the door of his house. When they entered, they surrounded his bed and wept silently. Ali said: You may ask any question you like before I leave you, but your questions should be brief." One of those present was Sa'sa'a Bin Suwhan. Your own great ulema, like Ibn Abdu'l-Birr and Ibn Sa'ad, have written about his life and character, have relied on him, confirming that he was a man of great learning.
- Sa'sa'a asked: "Who is superior, you or Jesus?" Ali said: "I am superior, for when Mary became pregnant by the Grace of Allah, and the time of her delivery approached, a revelation was granted to her: 'Leave this holy House for this is a House for prayers, not a place for the delivery of children.' Accordingly, she left the holy House and went to the wilderness where she gave birth to Jesus. But when my mother, Fatima Bint-e-Asad, felt labor pains within the precincts of the holy Ka'ba, she clung to the wall and prayed to Allah in the name of that House and the builder of that House, to lessen her pain. Soon a fissure appeared in the wall, and my mother heard a mysterious voice telling her, "O Fatima! Enter the House of the Ka'ba.' She went in, and I was born inside of the holy Ka'ba."
Google give 4 520 hits [8]
--Striver 9 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)
even WP sais it :P
- Mowla Ali was born on the thirteenth of Rajab twenty-two years before Hijra (A.D. 600) inside the sacred house of Ka'ba. No one else has been born in the House of Allah ever since its foundation by Prophet Ibra'hi'm (Abraham).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismaili
Brother, i not telling you its a fact, im telling you people belive it!
Here:
- "Ali was born under unusual circumstances. On the thirteenth of the holy month of "Rajab", Fatima, the mother of Ali, visited the Kaaba for performing the pilgrimage. During the course of the pilgrimage while circumambulating the Kaaba, Fatima felt the pangs of childbirth. She retired to a secluded place in the precincts of the Holy Kaaba, and there Ali was born."
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/01_ali_bin_talib.htm#Date%20of%20birth
List of sunni sites that claim it:
- witness-pioneer.org says Ali
- witness-pioneer.org ,again, says Ali
- madeena.s5.com says Ali
- anwary-islam.com says Hakim
Shia sites:
- yazehra.com says Ali
- imamalinet.net says Ali
- islamroots says Ali
- ezsoftech.com says Ali
- aljaafaria.com Says Ali *amaana.org Says Ali
- asp?Type=Articles&prt=none playandlearn.org Says Ali *victorynewsmagazine.com Says Ali
- islamicresearch.org says Ali
Ismili sites:
- slamicate.com says Ali
- Wikipedia Says Ali
- ismaili.net says Ali
Shia sources:
- Peswar nights says Ali
- restatement of history says Ali
Sunni Source
- Hakim in his Mustadrak says Ali
- Nuru'd-din Bin Sabbagh Maliki in his Fusulu'l- Muhimma says Ali
Shia Individuals
- Ali Abbas says Ali
- a whole bunch says ali
- [www.iran-daily.com/1383/2132/html/national.htm someone] says Ali
Sunni individuals:
- pak says Ali
- Deedat does not dispiute it
- Anwaar Qureshi says Ali
Muslim individual:
- Shaneabbas User:Shaneabbas says Ali
I could go on the whole night, Google gives 8 850 hits.
Dear brother, i dont have the actual source of it, exept for the sunni one i gave you. But dont all of this constitute proof of BELIF`?
NOT A SINGLE SOURCE/PERSON I HAVE MEET REFUTES IT, EXEPT ZORA!
Oh, one person wanted evidence:
Woho, her is one saying to bewar of it, but its just a private pov, its not sourced:
- OMG says "It is not logical"
But this guy tells him otherwise:
- Texan_Dude says "...lame excuses people come up ..."
Your brother in Islam, --Striver 9 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)
OK, thanks brother. Ill see if i can find a more prominent Sunni site saying it.
Btw, witness-pioneer being sunni is easly proved by this list and by their refusal to touch Ghadire Khumm.
--Striver 9 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)
Good day and Salam Aleikom my brother in Islam!
Thank you for representing the shia pov regarding Ali being born int Kaba!
Now, how do you propose whe should handle that some very profesional Sunni sites make similar claims?
Anwary Islam claims only Hakim was born ther, and Wittnes-pionner says it was Ali.
Surly it is relevant and should be included, otherwise it would imply that all sunnis refuse that idea. How is that best represented in Wikipedia?
Ma Salam! --Striver 9 July 2005 11:32 (UTC)
Salam Brother!
Ok, whe dont need to include that all Sunnis belive that.
- "Some sunnis agree to that, some say it was Hakim that was the only one to be born in it and a third group dissmis the whole notion of somebody having been born in it. With current sources, it can not be established wich is the biggest of the three groups."
Is that a accurate report of how it is?
Ma salam!
--Striver 9 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)
Ka'ba
I agree with you for 100% that something that we do not know is better to not claim, absolutly correct!
At the same time, whe need to report what whe DO know, right?
So, what do whe know?
- All Shia belive he was born in the Kaba.
- Some sunnis belive he was born in the Kaba.
- Some sunnis belive Hakim was born in the Kaba.
- Some dissmis it.
Those four points are 100% confirmed, their is no doubt about it what so ever!
Mashalla, we did a great research yeasterday and found that out beyound a doubt.
Now, the problem is that whe dont know the proportion of the 3 last parts.
Does that mean that whe should not report whar we know for 100%?
No, of course not, it just means that we need to enlight people of the uncertanty!
Now, abut Hakim.
The reason he is relevant is simple: Those who belive Hakim was born in it, belive so in exclusion of Ali, and that makes it relevant. In other words, they say that since hakim was born ther, Ali could not be born ther. That is relant to the Ali article.
The Npov states:
- Articles should be written without bias, representing all views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy.
- The policy is easily misunderstood: It doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct.
- Neutrality does not compel us to introduce inaccuracy when something can be directly verified.
- The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?
- In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.
Thats why i proposed that we write:
- "Shias belive Ali was born in the Ka'ba. Some sunnis agree to that, but some say it was Hakim that was the only one to be born in it, therfor exluding Ali. And a third group dissmis the whole notion of somebody having been born in it. With current sources, it can not be established wich is the biggest of the three groups."
Dont you agree that it is the policy of Wikipedia to report information as accurate as posible, but not att the cost of witholding it?
You brother in Islam, --Striver 9 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)
Found this as whel:
If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Npov
--Striver 9 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)
Answer
You wrote:
To "describe a dispute fairly", one must first find out:
1. whether there even is a dispute (as opposed to, say, a simple mistake in witness-pioneer); 2. what authoritative sources the dispute is based on; 3. if possible, what position is more widely held.
If you can answer at least the first two questions, then I'd be happy to put it in. So far, I'm not even convinced there is a real dispute among Sunnis about this. - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)
Brother, i did not claim that there is a dispute betwen Sunnis about it. I Just said that difrent Sunnis have difrent belifs regarding the issue. And that is evident from the researh we did yesterday. Dont forget that sunnis have diffrenses in some areas without claiming the opposing belif to be incorect.
For example, som say that one can have the hands crossed while praying and other do diffrent. And none claim the other is doing wrong.
Im not claiming that there is a dispute, just that diffrent sunnis have diffrent belif regarding this issue.
Regarding i been a misstake from witness-pioneer, that is far fetcht. No enough that they have writen it twice in diffrent chapters, ther are other individuals and an unprofessional website making the same claim, dissming the idea that it is only misstake from witness-pioneer
What really gives the deathblow to the "misstake" theory is anwar-islam making the claim that it was Hakim. It is TOTALY impossible that they got that from a shia source, since a shia would never dream of giving that honor to anybody besides Ali (sa)! . It proves that they got that from a sunni Source!
Nuber two is totaly irrelevant, since whe are not reporting about WHY they belive in it, rather THAT they belive in it. Att least enogh to put it on their profesional sites, both the Hakim and Ali version. Truth is: Its the "nobody was born in the mecca" that is the least representativ, since it is not claimed on a single site, only on one (!) chat site!
lack of that knowledge does not justify to not report the BELIFE
Is desirable to know wich position is widely held, but the lack of it does not justify to not report the BELIFE!
Furthermore, it is established that no website article claims that Ali was born some other place, nor is there any website article claiming that nobody was born in it. Basing on that it is logical to detuct that Nobody being born in the Kabaa is NOT the widely held belif, and that sould be reported as well, however im not going to forward that.
So for the points:
- 1 I do not claim any disputes, only diffrent belifs. It being a misstake is impossible.
- 2 What sources they use is irrelevant.
- 3 Its is already covered in my proposed version, that we do not know.
--Striver 19:49, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
Slam!
Bro, have you forgoten this subject?
--Striver 20:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
never expected this
but...
Book 010, Number 3662:
- A hadith like this has been transmitted on the authority of Hakim b. Hizam (Imam Muslim) said: Hakim b. Hizam was born inside the Ka'ba and lived for one hundred and twenty years.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/010.smt.html
Thank you. I hope it will be represented in the article now?
So, what do whe do with wittnes-pioneer and all the other sunni's that go with "Ali was born in the Kabba"? Are they still not worth representing?
--Striver 11:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
In that case you are sayng that Sunnis belive that Ali could have been born in the Kabaa, and that Hakim being born there does not exclude Ali from beeing born there. In that case, that must be represetend.
--Striver 11:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, and i would guees that those two being the only two confirmed to have been born in the Kabaa does not make it anything woth mentioning?
What if i start Peoble born in the Kabba and link both of them there, would you agree to that?
--Striver 11:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Ahl al-Bayt
Salam again brother in Islam.
Im turning to you since you have been so strict about demanding to have oppinions sourced before letting it be claimed as Sunni view. Im talking about :
- not letting me write that sunni Belive Hakim was born in the Kabaa before i found it in Sahi Muslim
- Did not allaow, and still not letting me to claim that Ali was born in the Kabaa is a belife som Sunni have since i could not find it in Sahi Muslim, Sahi Bukhari or its like, even tough i found it in a less important Sunni book, that is "Hakim in his Mustadrak" and "Nuru'd-din Bin Sabbagh Maliki in his Fusulu'l- Muhimma"
- Not letting me either to write that Hakim was born in exlusion to Ali, since Sahi Muslim did not say so explicitly.
Ok. As we both know, Sahi Muslim says clarly and explicitly that wives are not a part of the Ahl al-Bayt.
Now, User:BrandonYusufToropov have made a contrary claim whitout sources, and further threatening me with arbitration. As you can see, he is sayin that his motivation for the threat is that i
- moved Ahl ul-Bayt to Ahl al-Bayt, however, as is evident, instead of reverting my redirect, he
- edited Ahl al-Bayt and did not touch Ahl ul-Bayt,
- instead of reverting Ahl ul-Bayt and redirecting Ahl al-Bayt, a less time consuming choice, implying that he is more concerned with what i wrote than my redirect, specialy since he is in a hurry.
Now, as as i have observed you to be a man of principles, i would like to bring this to your attention and ask you to remove the unsourced material, in the same way you dealt with the "born in Kabaa" issue.
Best regards, you brother in Islam --Striver 15:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Im eagerly waiting for your respons.
--Striver 01:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Salam.
Could you show me where ibn Kathir says wifes are members of Ahl al-Bayt?
Regarding Muslim, non of the versions say they are in the included in the term Ahl al-Bayt.
If you look closely:
Question 1:
- Who are the members of his household?
- Aren't his wives the members of his family?
Thereupon he said:
- His wives are the members of his family (but here) the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden.
Queation 2:
- And he said: Who are they? Thereupon he said: 'Ali and the offspring of 'Ali, 'Aqil and the offspring of 'Aqil and the offspring of Ja'far and the offspring of 'Abbas. Husain said: These are those for whom the acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. Zaid said: Yes.
Basicly, he is answearing two diffrent quersions, first: The wives are in or out. He say out
Then, for whom the acceptance: He answears.
If you complement that with the hadith 3 steps down:
Aren't the wives (of the Holy Prophet) included amongst the members of his house hold? Thereupon he said: No, by Allah, a woman lives with a man (as his wife) for a certain period; he then divorces her and she goes back to her parents and to her people; the members of his household include his ownself and his kith and kin (who are related to him by blood) and for him the acceptance of Zakat is prohibited.
Could you show me where Ibn Kathir is say wives are a part of the Ahl al-Bayt?
--Striver 02:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Striver
If you are interested, I'd be eager to hear your comments here. BrandonYusufToropov 9 July 2005 10:51 (UTC)
Celebrations of Palestinians following September 11
Hi there, I wonder if you'd mind taking a look at this article Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Although I have seen the full footage myself, several of the other cources in the article are almost impossible to verify, and it is linked from almost no other articles on the Wikipedia. I don't know whether to re-work it - it might be interesting to have an article on why the US media chose to emphasise such a small bit of footage without any political context - or to put it up for deletion. I'm worried that putting it on VfD might just create another magnet for edit wars. I think re-working it might be the answer, but I'm not about to insert links to tthis article in any others, so it seems a little pointless. ThanksillWill 23:23, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
History of Algeria-template
I tweaked the template a bit. Hope you don't disapprove. It looks a lot better in Algerian Civil War now.
Peter Isotalo 13:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- This is great, thanks! - Mustafaa 18:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
have a gander?
Wondering if you can have a gander over at two revert wars Jayjg and I are involved in. Al Andalus (Muslim Spain) and The Sword of the Prophet. You can check the talk pages to see his rationale for the constant reverting, because I don't understand why he's doing it, but, help is appreciated! regards - --Irishpunktom\talk 19:36, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Can you please ...
... take a look at my work here, and perhaps add it to your watchlist? Many thanks, BrandonYusufToropov 13:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- Update. User:Carbonite instantly reverted. BrandonYusufToropov 13:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
"un extrait de la Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l'Homme en arabe maghrébin"
I thought you might like a short break from all of the messages on your talkpage involving POV disputes, reversion, blockings, etc, etc... I found this at "le portail des langues de france": "un extrait de la déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme en arabe maghrébin"...
1 - el-fasel el-ouwwel Koul en-nas yetzadou h’ourrin ou metqaddin f-el-hemma w-el-h’ouqouq. Âend-houm el-âqel w-ed-damir ou wajeb âli-houm yetâamlou mâa baâd-houm baâd b-rouh’-el-khawa 3 - el-fasel et-talet Koul insan âend-ou el-h’aqq l-el-h’ayat w-el-h’ourriya w-es-salama l-nefs-ou. 4 - el-fasel er-rabeâ
H’etta wah’ed ykoun âebd wella memlouk. Temlik f-en-nas ou biâ l-âbid w-el-khdem memnouâ fach ma kan. 5 - el-fasel el-khames
H’etta wah’ed ykoun tayeâ l-et-teâdab, wala l-el-âouqoubat wella l-mâamlat el-weh’chiya wella ghir insaniya wella l-el-h’ogra.
... it's limited to the first 5 articles, but nevertheless I thought it might interest you, and I wondered if you've ever seen it before?
Obviously they use a somewhat french-based orthography (I would write "kul" rather than "koul", and "hurriya" rather than "hourriya"), but then it is a French site.
Best Node
Scripts in Bollywood
Is there a central place to discuss this? Like a Wikipedia:Bollywood Notice Board?
And, please, the script is not Arabic, but Urdu--Farsi, if you want.
—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Problems with Urdu script
Mustafaa, the problem is that several scripts are in use in India, and they are associated with various ethnic/religious groups, and using them points up ethnic/religious divisions. Putting up Urdu script ONLY for actors with Urdu-derived names strikes me as problematic. It's like putting stars on Jews. I'm not against foreign scripts, but I fear to wade into troubled waters. Zora 20:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
The article on Ibn Taymiya **seeeeeems** to be nothing but wahabbist/Salafi'ist propaganda.. and I don't like these groups (and they don't like me!). I have no idea how to start fixing it thogh, and was looking for help! --Irishpunktom\talk 23:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Israeli terrorism
Thank you, Mustaafa. I'm not involved in this page as an editor, but as an admin. I came to it in response to a request for protection. I don't know whether to classify what's going on as vandalism, or as naive editing, but a number of editors, two of them new and one anon IP, are adding nonsense to it e.g. Rachel Corrie was shot and her death counts as an act of terrorism. Almost all the editors at first glance seem to have violated 3RR, though I haven't checked the diffs carefully. One has been reported for it. So I've very temporarily protected the page until I can see who has added what; I've asked them to post their contentious edits on the talk page; and I intend to go through them and point out why they're problematic. I'm doing this for the benefit of the new editors, who may not realize they're causing a problem. So far, only one has responded. Any help you can offer would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:44, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith, Mustaafa. I was reverting nonsense — take a look at it for yourself — and doing so in the hope of not having to protect it. There's no reason regular editors should be prevented from editing because of the actions of a few irresponsible ones. Anyway, the page is unlocked now that it's quietened down. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that both versions are flawed. Terrorism isn't defined, so it's whatever the next editor wants it to be; and there are no or very few sources cited. I'm not keen on getting involved in it. It would be a thankless task. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Contested Photo
Hallo, and thank you: I just added the source to the picture's page. Jeus 00:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh -- much obliged. I had no idea. Hopefully this'll be the right one. Jeus 01:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Can you check back on your vote? There's been some extensive debate and Transwiki to Wikibooks seems like the logical choice. Thanks! Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 21:00, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Algeria-geo-stub
Thanks for posting it to the Wikiportal (I didn't know there was one!). I'm glad it's going to be useful. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
West Bank
I'm out of ideas on how to prevent revert wars on West Bank. The intro right now, without mention of population, reads like it is describing some disputed junkyard, and the only reason those opposing describing population give is that other articles don't do that. I've tried to explain in Talk: Gaza Strip why the special circumstances of these territories warrants a description of population, because otherwise in ignorant reader will gain no contextual information, but to no avail. This is ridiculous.Ramallite (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Comunleng VFD
Hey. I must disagree with you; I think being POV conlangcruft is a reason for deletion. ;) Anyway, wittiness aside, I think you forgot to sign your vote. The Literate Engineer 01:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Guy Montag
This user keeps removing the tag off the Palestinian terrorism article even after specific objections have been given. He has violated the 3RR and is a very combative editor. I really have no idea how to deal with him.Heraclius 02:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I have to add my support - he has gone totally out of control on Zionist Terrorism changing the article to totally reflect POV and insists on reverting back to non consensus versions on Israeli terrorism Worse he is making it plain that he is not interested in the truth just reverting to ensure that his POV is paramount. 62.253.64.15 00:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
The claim that Guy has been reverting some sort of "consensus" version of Israeli terrorism is simply false. As for the tags, Heraclius has been playing games with them; putting tags on articles without any issues in Talk:. Jayjg (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Montag has already violated the 3RR many times and you both will not accept that there is a dispute. The fact that there is an edit war suggests that the neutrality of the article is disputed.Heraclius 03:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
If Guy has broken 3RR, get him blocked for it; regardless, there is no "consensus" version he has been reverting. As for tags, your placement of them on pages is just a game to mark pages you don't like, but don't have any specific complaints about. Jayjg (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- And your removal of tags is just a game to make pages you like seem totally neutral. Remember that you were the one who removed the tag and set off this whole edit war.Heraclius 04:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I actually *do* have to agree about Guy Montag -- he's out of control. There can be no changes to the Israeli Terrorism article without his express approval. It's quite frustrating, because WP isn't supposed to consist of a single POV -- particularly on already-controversial issues. Avivle 06:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
History of Palestine
Thanks! Those are really useful! Ramallite (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I was just wandering around randomly. I ended up at Belaïd Abrika's page and was curious about the red link. So I did a bit of research and filled it in. I'm glad you liked it! Pburka 23:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Palestinian territories
I'll take a look at the Talk: page. However, considering that it was entered in the article by User:Heraclius without consultation, one of many of his attempts to do so without agreement or consultation or really any rationale for doing so (aside from his usual "this is better"), I don't think its removal is particularly controversial. Jayjg (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Fatimah, as
Salam dear brother in Islam!
Care to take a look?
--Striver 23:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Qiyamah
Any expertise you could lend to the Qiyamah page would be much appreciated. Thanks. freestylefrappe 02:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Making RfC for Germen
I'm putting together an RfC for Germen's behaviour on the Islamophobia article and associated pages. Since you have been involved in disputes with this user before I was hoping you might be able to contribute to the draft before I publish it on WP:RFC. Axon 12:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I've completed the draft of the RfC. If you could review it to ensure you still endorse it I will publish it ASAP. Axon 16:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Tunceli and Denizli
these are the current titles of Turkish province articles. Could you move them to Tunceli Province and Denizli province ? It is usually that Turkish provinces are having their article titles not after the town but the xxx province format. Regards, Sarcelles 13:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Tony Gatlif
Hey Mustafaa, I'm looking to categorize a short article on French/Algerian director Tony Gatlif. Can you sort it on the Algeria side? I can't really tell where the relevant spot to include him would be, but I'd like to include him there. Thanks!! Best, --Dvyost 15:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
RFC
Salam!
Care to comment on this?
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/London bombing
--Striver 15:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
VFD Islamic state in Palestine
Your vote says redirect, but if you could change it to redirect to Hamas that would be appreciated as almost all the other votes are that way too.Heraclius 17:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Recent edit
hello! I appreciate the edit you did on that article I re-worked, (mere minutes before your own contribution). I must admit that I know very little about the actual topic or of Islamic history in general, but I feel that some mention of the citizens known as Dhimmi is warrented. Also the section concerning prohibitions that Muslims had to follow compared to the dhimmi seemed appropriate to the article. My feeling is that the piece concerns persecution of one group by another for various infractions of existing law or prohibitions. Your edit is good, but removes some material, which makes it read more as a history of early Islamic expansion and less on the topic at hand. I will however make an effort to ascertain the veracity of some of the material you felt was superfluous. For contrast, please read the edit prior to the one I applied. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Hamster Sandwich 01:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input on this article, as I stated my intention was simply to make non-perjoritive edits to the piece, to tighten up the pace and to try in general to make it more readable. One of my roommates is a Muslim, he read it, and didn't see anything that was glaringly wrong with the article as it was after my edit. The recent additions are very much taking a perjoritive stance, and superfluous material is obfuscating the subject. Certainly subject material concerning the oppression and persecution by one identifiable group towards another is basis for historical record, and as such a useful addition to the wikipedia. My suggestion would be that in cases where an individual contributes an article that concerns a "hot button" issue such as this, that if ones personal feelings cannot be separated in a very real way from what the historical record indicates, that they should stay well away from the article, in an editorial capacity at any rate. However as you must be aware, very few people have that level of restraint! I do, so the editting I did on that article as of the 20th, will be the last time I will personally work on it. Important to the wikipedia, but not to me and in any case, I have no agenda to push concerning it. Good luck, and good writing! Hamster Sandwich 00:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Islam FFI links
I was getting frustrated with the link war reverts on Islam so I looked at the three (non-anons) who keep adding the links (User:Nickbee, User:Exmuslim, and User:A Kaffir) and I realized that their only edits are that revert warring. Is there something that could/should be done? It's bad enough to revert with established editors but that is literally their only edits. I realize you're probably busy so if you don't have time you can surely put it off. gren 20:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
RFC
There is an RFC - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Noitall - against someone who called you a terrorist for making continued personal attacks on users. ~~~~ 15:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Breathanach conlang
hi.
i saw on the page history of Breathanach that you had first & second thoughts on deleting it.
in case you are interested, it is now up for deletion: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Breathanach.
peace – ishwar (speak) 19:38, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
Linguistics
Thanks for your heads-up to me. I'm glad to see that there is little rancor among the people editing the linguistics pages; there is little more stressful than a Wikipedia argument/edit war. Benwing 06:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
introduction: Jeffrey Newman
Hi Mustafaa. Allow me to introduce you to Jeffrey Newman (User talk:Jeffrey Newman). He is interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and was curious to know if there were any authors who worked on African, Indian and other languages.
Jeffrey, I dont know Mustafaa so well, but I hope that he doesnt mind this introduction. Mustafaa is a linguist who has written about African (esp. North Africa) languages, politics, people, culture, and other related topics. Mustafaa also is an active participant in the CSB project and (from his user page) is interested in historical linguistics. – ishwar (speak) 16:58, 2005 July 24 (UTC)
- Mustafaa - I hope you don't mind my being 'introduced' to you! I have in fact visited before but do not wish to become too involved in all the Israeli-Jewish-Palestinian-Arab-Islamic-Christian controversies (and I hope that is NPOV!) In fact, the whole question of NPOV is probably a major interest for me which is why when I came across WP:CSB I went searching, and found the work of ishwar which is the most important and impressive (to me) that I have yet encountered on WP. I am still very new, so am mainly browsing, doing a little editing and commenting while I find my way around. I am extremely interested in WP - but also seriously concerned. I have been and am a teacher, with major interest in philosophy and politics. Perhaps from time to time we will encounter one another on some areas. I hope so. Greetings and, as ishwar would say, Peace. Jeffrey Newman 17:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
One thing
Would you mind voting here?
It's featured...
Congrats on the successful FAC! I think you were right to move the history template up, though, and I reverted Raul. Let's see if it sticks. If not, I'll just leave it be. It's still a good article.
cheers
Peter Isotalo 19:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
User:TShilo12/RFC/TheUnforgiven
I'm sure that is impressive. TheUnforgiven 01:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Islam poll
[9] I thought you might be interested in this.Heraclius 17:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
RfA for Germen
Please be aware that, in light of the RfC against Germen, I have raised an request for arbitration for him. Axon (talk|contribs) 10:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Salam!
Take a look att this : Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Sunni Guild
Ma salam!
--Striver 16:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
new vfd
The prior VFD that you voted at ended with no consensus, a new VFD has been opened at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Historical persecution by Muslims. ~~~~ 18:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
NPOV
Salam, my brother in Islam.
Is this Ethic_of_reciprocity#Exceptions NPOV?
--Striver 00:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
If you have a chance, would you mind taking a look at Slave trade? I believe that User:Heraclius has been involved in a determined attempt to POV the article. Jayjg (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Dispute with an admin
Hi,
I have a complaint against UninvitedCompany, an administrator. Basically, he violated the blocking policy, by blocking me (for 72 hours) after I made 2 reverts, claiming I had broken the 3RR policy listing 4 reverts - 22:51 5 August 2005, 23:00 5 August 2005, 08:58 6 August, 23:12 6 August 2005 - however, none of these cover a period over 24 hours. At the time of the fourth revert listed, there was only 1 prior revert in the prior 24 hours. This is also true for the time of the 3rd revert listed.
I accused UnivitedCompany of breaking the blocking policy, and UnivitedCompany openly admitted doing so - "I have indeed violated the letter of the blocking policy". I also accused UninvitedCompany of blocking me because he/she has an anti-Islamic POV and didn't like the fact that I was opposing anti-Islamic POV pushers, UninvitedCompany replied admitting that they have an "extremely anti-Islamic" POV.
I don't feel this is appropriate behaviour for an administrator - violating blocking policy, and reinterpreting 3RR as 1RR, simply to punish people whose opinions they disagree with, isn't really something that should be permissable. Several administrators have already stated that the block was probably inappropriate (and none have supported UninvitedCompany's stance), but they seem unwilling to become involved (possibly due to UninvitedCompany's status as a longstanding admin (which UninvitedCompany claims makes him a "senior administrator", a post which simply does not exist), not that a cabal exists).
I would like to raise an RFC over the matter, but I need a co-signatory to do so, so I was wondering if you would be able to look into the matter.
Thanks,
-Ril-
~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Any place you can think of that this/my wonderfully-written article should be mentioned? Tomer TALK 04:05, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Admin out of control
Under exactly what authority does UninvitedCompany think he can unilaterally permanently ban users, and destroy their user pages, and protect their talk pages so that they can't respond? - [10]
It should be noted that the alleged images were listed at User:Evil Monkey/Nudity as well as being considered entirely appropriate for articles, having, as far as I can tell, already survived IFD, and have been on Wikipedia for over a month.
Note that an arbcom case has only just opened and has by no means come down with even remotely any penalty such as a ban. UninvitedCompany seems to think he has greater authority than ArbCom, and can completely act outside it.
Does UninvitedCompany has infinite power and permission to unilaterally with impunity?
Particularly when the user/victim in question has challanged a prior abuse of adminship by UninvitedCompany in an RfC, and has diametrically opposed political opinions?
This seems to be a case of right wing evangelical Christian admins thinking they have the right to dictate to everyone else.
It also seems in contempt of the arbitration committee's right to make the decision.
SomeAccountThatIWillListOn-Ril-'sUserPageWhenOrIfIEverGetItBack (-Ril-) 11:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)