User talk:Mystìc

Message Page for Mystic
Click here to leave me a message File:Crystal email.png Send me a personal email Go to my main userpage File:TalkArchive.jpg Archive upto April 16 2006 File:TalkArchive.jpg Archive April 16 2006 to May 30 2006

Major work on Colombo article

Dear Mystìc,

I noticed you've put a lot of effort into improving this article. Yesterday I made some changes to your edits, but I don't want to disrupt your work. My changes were mostly removing internal wikilinks to articles that are not relevant to Colombo. I thought I would point out that if you link ordinary words, like I just did, it isn't helpful to the reader because if they follow the link they will not find anything related to the subject, so it's normal practice to only link to an article that provides extra information about something specific to the main article. These concepts are discussed more fully under WP:MoS, which is highly recommended reading. Happy editing! Slowmover 14:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I also restored the disambiguation link to the "Columbo" television series, because it is a commonly misspelled word. Similarly, "Columbia" and "Colombia" are often confused, so people searching for one of these often end up at the wrong article. Slowmover 14:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your advice and help, I will sure keep what you said in my mind, happy to learn from you.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 17:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

shahada issue

hi mystic, I saw you left a message at my talk page. I actually dont understand what you wanted me to do. where's the actual discussion? I'd like to have my say there. Suleyman Habeeb 19:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote stacking on Template:Islam

You have recently been observed canvassing for votes regarding Template:Islam. Please note that this may be construed by many administrators as internal spamming, something severely frowned upon by most administrators on Wikipedia. This behavior in fact on one occasion contributed towards a Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in blocking. Please do not game the system and respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by ceasing to further canvass for votes, and instead allow the process to instead reflect the opinions of editors that were actively involved in the matter at hand. Thanks. Netscott 22:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry I didnt get what you are saying!!! Can you give a diff of an instance that I have asked anyone to vote for my image? I have only asked people to make there comment. Please understand the wikipedia community does not just comprise of you and me. There are thousands of users who would be interested in matters that they are not aware of, I was only asking them to have there say. There is no need for you to threaten me. And I kindly request you to stop stalking me.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 08:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And also remember I am not the one who started that "stupid" vote count, I am aware that vote counting is discouraged in wikipedia, I have expressed my displeasure in the template talk page about this. And you are responsible for starting a count.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 08:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Your utilization of the word "stalking" when referring to me would be a violation that falls under Wikipedia "no personal attack" policy. I suggest you refrain from utlizing such personal attackish terminology when describing my behavior relative to your attempt at vote stacking. There is no need for one to "stalk" you to see the evidence of your attempt to "game the system" in terms of having the shahada image you added to Wikipedia included on that template when users like User:Suleyman_Habeeb who has never been involved in discussions about it suddenly appear from nowhere to "vote" ("kindly indicate your preference"="vote") about it. You did the same thing in asking User:JuanMuslim to flat out "vote". As I indicated on my latest commentary in the "Consensus? Nonsense" section, my list was never meant as a poll but was made to refute your asinine claim of "consensus" for including the shahada image. If you're talking about "stupid" this false claim surely qualifies. Netscott 12:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Asking someone to tell there preference is sure not canvassing!! I kindly request you to withdraw your allegations that I was canvassing. Canvassing means the act of persuading ; communicatioon intended to induce belief.

I didn't persuade anyone to vote in favour of me, all the editors whom I have approached, could've very well voted against it if they saw any reason for it. And I would like to ask what were YOU doing when you asked this from Azate, if I was canvassing this sure too qualifies as canvassing. I have apologized for my previous claim of consensus then, as I was new to wikipedia, I didn't have clear picture about the policy. Anyway I am not in the mudslinging business.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 13:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote Stacking proof

Actually your "gaming of the system" was in fact quite a bit worse than I had realized but now that I have reviewed your edits I can see that you've been essentially canvassing all along.

You intitially started out mass mailing a group of users neutrally asking about the new image you wanted to add to the Template. [1]

But when that didn't work you proceeded to persuade and induce belief that the group you spammed should support the image you added by internal spamming the following message across dozens of user talk pages:

Template:Islam Hi there, The Islam template is used in all Islam related articles and it carries an image of the mosque, if you take a close look at the other religion templates they all carry an icon that actually symbolizes the particular religion. The question is what symbolizes Islam? As a muslim you would agree that we cannot Idolize any symbol as sacred as it would be Shirk. So the next question is what kind of icon would correctly represent Islam and Muslims? It is undoubtedly the Shahada, because without it we wouldn't be muslims. So I have suggested to change the template image from a masjid to a Masjid with the Shahada in it. In order to have the image in the template I need build some consense, could you kindly visit the talk page (Template_talk:Islam) and make your suggestion, lets have the template change so it will correctly represent Islam. (You do not have to support it if you dont like it). thanks in advance.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  (T)

1. spam
2. spam
3. spam
4. spam
5. spam
6. spam
7. spam
8. spam
9. spam
10. spam
11. spam
12. spam
13. spam
14. spam
15. spam
16. spam
17. spam
18. spam
19. spam
20. spam
21. spam
22. spam
23. spam
24. spam
25. spam
26. spam
27. spam

When that didn't work you proceeded to continue to game the system:

"indicate your vote"

"would you kindly consider voting "for it" thanks"

"change back to 'for it' please"

"please include your name in the section for consensus"

And you accuse me of "gaming the system" when I invited one person to join the debate (actually discuss "what represents Islam")? Let if go already! Netscott 20:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Very good research indeed. I admit that it may be (is) spamming, but was not canvassing!!! And trully I didn't know that posting the same message to several users is not allowed in wikipedia, until you posted that warning earlier. I appologize for my mistake. But I didn't do any canvassing. For instance in this particular case, the user had expressed his consent in favor of the new image but hadn't indicated it (in your Consensus? Nonesense section). Since you people were counting votes I asked him/her to put his signature there. And I again like to tell you some of these users actually voted against it. So that is evidence that I didn't persuade them to vote for it. My only intention was to have more people in the discussion, so that it would be the most correct representation of Islam.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 20:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The language in your spam message isn't neutral but rather is meant to induce support for the adoption of the shahada image. In your message you are virtually questioning the faith of Muslims who might not want to support the shahada image. Why don't you just drop this issue? Since you did "game the system" the true consensus as it would have been about the whole issue is now very doubtful. You are a very productive and highly positive contributing editor on Wikipedia (I noticed your other highly beneficial edits in my research). This Shahada issue is starting to severely taint your persona relative to demonstrating good faith and is becoming a vitriolic point of contention that sooner should go away. Netscott 20:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My problem is with my English language I suppose. People often misunderstand me as disrespectful, as is the case with some other editors I know who were interpreted as rude sometimes even by me. So I am not supprised that you didnt see neutrality in my message. I thank you for your compliments. As you would've noticed I had already given up on the image, until you started another "consensus again" section. So I thought (naturally ) I have another chance..If you noticed I didn't even respond when Cunado accused me of sock puppeting.. And my current focus is on the Colombo article, and I am looking for someone to correct grammar mistakes in it. thats all I have to say.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 20:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Mystìc, I'm sorry to have seen that you were blocked as it was not my intention for that to happen! That said I believe I understood why User:Sceptre did so which was to have you understand in no uncertain terms that spamming is bad. I see you were unblocked so it seems that User:Sceptre saw that the message that spamming was bad was clearly understood by yourself and unblocked you. Again, I apologize to see that you were blocked! Netscott 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think he missed to read the talk page properly, I am glad its over..  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 07:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

POLL

No, no, no, not what you think! This time is for something that all of us need:

Improvement of the <ref> function.

Please weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Poll! NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 18:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sent

Mystic, I am going out for lunch (I need to accompany my friends) but will be back in the afternoon.

Take care, --Aminz 19:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Smiley2

Hi Mystic, I liked Template:Smiley so much , I made Template:Smiley2 to complement it with a version that's a little closer to most text heights! Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 03:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Since it's your inspiration, I'll leave what to do up to you. The smaller version is a bit hard to see details, so I like the larger version too. How about switching them? Rfrisbie^talk 04:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I managed to fix the "expression error." Take a look. {{smiley}} {{smiley2}} Rfrisbie^talk 08:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

great work thanks a lot, there are some other templates thats got the same expression error could you look into it. (I hope I am not asking for too much)

• Template:Bukhari
• Template:Muslim
• Template:Muslim-usc
• Template:Bukhari-usc
• Template:Muwatta

 «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 09:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The above and related templates are fixed. They all needed "default" values to eliminate the error messages on the template pages. Rfrisbie^talk 13:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad

Greetings Mystìc, I noticed that you've submitted this category for deletion as though it was an article. Categories have a seperate deletion process. Please see this page and alter your AfD to a CfD. Thanks. Netscott 09:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

oops Thanks Nettscott, I am glad I have a friend like you...  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 09:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll probably be voting for deletion of that category myself... it stikes me as being less that neutral relative to Muhammad as in my opinion it's too "demonizing". Netscott 09:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Nettscott  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 09:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Your post on my talk page is incredible, considering postings here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/Categories requesting votes. There is no wikipedia policy against informing long-standing members of votes the outcomes of which may interest them. In no case did I request that the party vote one way or the other. Your outrage is highly misdirected. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Brother I understand what you are saying they are wrong to ask to vote or induce people to vote.. "That is Gaming the System", (See above how I learnt my lesson) Whoever does it its wrong maybe you can tell them to stop doing it.. probably they dont know..  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 20:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that I sent the message only to people I know and have collaborated with on Wikipedia, who I knew would be interested in the vote. I did not randomly select people for spamming. Nor did I post a request to vote on a blatantly POV wikiproject page requesting votes. As it happens many of the people I contacted voted to rename the category, and after discussion I came around to their point of view, not the other way around. That's not gaming the system. That IS the system. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary suppose people who you asked, voted in support of you? Wouldn't that be gaming the system? See brother, my idea is not to threaten you or anything.. I dont want you to do the same mistake I have done (ofcourse in my case it was totally unintentional as I didn't know the rules I assume the same with you). And I am only being nice to you.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 20:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mystic: I came to User talk:Briangotts for an unrelated reason and I saw your post. I would welcome Brian's notification but I didn't get it. I must say that I find your intimidation and threats unacceptable. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not take your post as a threat, just ironic in light of what other folks are doing in this vote. I think, though, that you either misunderstand the Wikipedia policies in question, or else you fail to see the difference between indiscriminate spamming and contacting a few (less than 10) people you know will want to be informed about this or that vote. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In my limited experience with wikipedia I have learnt that if people are interested in something they will definitely participate in it.. There is no need for anyone to inform others.. If the topic in question is of any importance to them they would have it in their watch list wouldn't they? I dont think I have misunderstood the policy.. Where does the policy say less than 10 is okay and more than 10 not okay (I am willing to learn if you could teach) ..  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 20:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that 10 was a magic limit. I put that in to show that I had contacted only a small number of people. But if I had contacted 100 (out of the tens of thousands of editors out there) it would have been no different- as long as I was targeting people I knew and worked with, and knew they would be interested. With all the bajillions of articles it is very easy for something to slip by someone when it is quite important to them - it has happened to me on votes, rfas, and the like on more than one occasion. For all that, I am still not aware of any policy that bars the conduct in which I engaged, and I fail to see such conduct banned in any of the materials you referred me to.

Nor, on a slightly different topic, do I have any clue as to how saying "such and such a person was killed at Muhammad's order" can be "original research" (your justification for the vote) when the source for the statement is a myriad of Islamic sources whose purpose was to extoll Muhammad's virtues. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a single source that says Mohammed (pbuh) ordered someone to kill (assasinate) another? And one source that says so and so killed because prophet asked them to do so and not out of their own will? If you cannot its your own assumption and conclusion that makes it Original Research.

 «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 20:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Nabwi.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Nabwi.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images 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. gren グレン 03:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please delete it..  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 06:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Username

When you opened your account, did you consider using the username User:Mystіc, with the Ukrainian letter і. It looks more like the English Mystic than Mystìc. I just noticed that now ;-) --Tēlex 11:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that Telex, There is already a user by the name Mystic who is not active. So I didn't want my name to look exactly like his just in case he/she starts editing. Anyway I would like to know the ASCII code for the Ukranian i, the current ì code is 0236.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 14:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's 1110. You know you can change username while saving your edits, see Wikipedia:Changing username. The problem is that then you may seem like the other user who has already reserved the username Mystic. --Tēlex 14:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Quba.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Quba.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Calm talk & attacks

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. - This is inappropriate: [2] Please comment on Pecher's edits, not on Pecher himself. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity.. Where were you when Pecher accused me of Vandalism when it is not?  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 14:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I can understand frustration, but please keep a cool head when responding to comments on this talk page when making your point. Thanks! Zenosparadox 18:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Quba_Night.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Quba_Night.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

please describe about the copy right situation

salam mystic.

I saw this and use it in Persian wikipedia .

Today I saw it in these sites [3] and [4]

Please describe about the copy right situation of the Shahada.gif--Sa.vakilian 04:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As said many times in the Template:Islam talk page.. this image is an old caligraphy design found in many mosques.. If I am not mistaken it found even at Haram Sheriff (needs to be verified), I have taken the image modified the color (gradient effect) with Photoshop CS2. As this caligraphy can be found in many ancient mosques, no issue with copyright.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 18:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Administrator

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Salman01

Final (1/11/5) Ended 05:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Salman01 (talk · contribs) – Hello everyone, How are you? My name is Salman and I have been editing articles in wikipedia for a while. I have been through all different kinds of things at wikipedia; see my talk page for more details. Others wikipedians and I also believe that I have improved a lot since the first time I started editing at wikipedia. I would like an opportunity to become an administrator at wikipedia because even though I have posted “I am willing to help whoever is looking for help in their work”, I haven’t been offered for help. So I would like to become an administrator so I can help others wikipedians. Thank you SalmanSallu 21:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support

1. Moral Support Might I suggest withdrawing from this RfA, for if the oppose votes pile up, I'd hate to have you become jaded with the project and leave, as you seem to be a valuable contributor. Perhaps take a look at some recent RfA candidates who have succeeded in becoming admins to get a feel of what the community is looking for in a potential administrator. If you wait a while and get a better handle on what an admin is all about, I'm sure you'll see most of the oppose votes turn into supporting votes at a later date. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 02:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Cuñado - Talk 02:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Ian Cairns 00:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC) (I took time to read Salman01's talk page and viewed the issues with his edits. I am also struggling with the relevance of Salman01's answer to Q2 below.)
3. Oppose. Not sure if this RfA is open for voting yet according to policy, which is one of the reasons for this vote. -lethe ^{talk +} 00:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Salman01_RfA -- Avi 01:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose none of the tasks listed are admin tasks, removing opinions is not the reason to get admin Alphachimp ^talk 01:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose per above. --WinHunter ^(talk) 01:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose malformed unlisted RfA (see WP:RfA talk). Answer to question one shows that candidate doesn't seem to understand what admin tools are for - you can ensure "Islamic pages contain only Islamic information in a neutral way" without the tools and quite frankly, if that is your only need for them, then you don't need them. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 01:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose per RfA talk. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
9. digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} 02:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC) — per above
10. Oppose. Suggest withdrawal. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-05 02:27Z
11. Oppose per block log. You got blocked on July 1 and you nominated yourself for adminship on July 2? I haven't checked the allegations to see if they're true, but a potential admin should have a clean record. --Elkman 04:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. --Street Scholar 11:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Avoid pile on. Strongly suggest withdrawal. Roy A.A. 02:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Merovingian {T C @} 03:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Voting neutral only to not pile on to the oppose votes. A withdraw would be a wise choice. --WillMak050389 03:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral to avoid pile on and possible :('edness on behalf of Salman. I strongly suggest withdrawal mate. ShaunES 05:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC).

Comments

• Comment This user has less than 1000 edits, and most are to the same articles. Alphachimp ^talk 01:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I highly contributed to the Islamic pages at wikipedia, since they are very likely read these days by everyone. I wanted to make sure that the Islamic pages contain only Islamic information in a neutral way. I am going to continue editing at wikipedia for as long as possible.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: Well, I am really pleased with all most each and every article that had been written in detail by wikipedians. Whenever I need help with school work I always come to wikipedia for guidance and information about my project. I am very pleased with most of the articles written fully in wikipedia. The only thing I don’t like about wikipedia is that there are so many wikipedians around and there are still some articles that are incomplete so I am willing to contribute to the articles that are incomplete.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Yes I have been, not a lot of times though. Recently I have been accused by our friend Grenavitar for violating the copyright rules of wikipedia and he blocked me from editing articles on wikipedia. But now I am back and I am going to try my best to solve the issue in a nice and professional way. I am innocent as far as this accusation is concerned.

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

and another Poll...

Hi. There's a debate about how much "X-ian" one must be in order to be considered "X-American" (or X-Yian for that matter) and be categorized as such. The poll is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Rules for lists of X-Americans. Kindly weigh in! :NikoSilver: 22:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Macedonia (terminology)

Well, that'll be the first article we're not bitching too much about! :-) :NikoSilver: 22:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Request

On User:Mystìc/Morality of Bible#Things, there is a link that is on Wikipedia's spam filter. It has been maintained as an attack site, and has released personnal information about some Wikipedians in the past. Could I ask you to remove it? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove it. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put that link there.. u can remove it.. but the link is no secret anymore.. isn't it.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 05:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Barnstar Award

Please offer your opinion, vote, or whatever about your choice for the image to be used with the Islamic Barnstar Award at the Barnstar proposals page. Although there is consensus for the concept of an Islamic Barnstar Award, some editors would like to change the image for the award. I was just thinking you should be aware of this discussion because you have contributed to Islamic-related articles, received the Islamic Barnstar Award, or have contributed to the Islam-related Wikiprojects, etc.--JuanMuslim ^1m 03:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edits on criticism of islam

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 14:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Are u kidding? I didn't know that this rule applies for removing ORIGINAL RESEARCH!! why dont you kindly read the wikipedia policy b4 blindly accusing me of vandalism  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 07:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)