User talk:FayssalF/Archive P

Your recent message,

Ahem, I have just a recieved a message that this was my final warning of vandalsm, I would just lke to tell you that THIS IS A SCHOOL COMPUTER. Stop sending these messages and tell your colleagues to, or have you never encountered a school computer... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.82.98.10 (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

RE: your message in the talk page of the article on MMOJ

So, did I read correctly that you are wanting people to offer suggestions on how to disambiguate and use our sandboxes to present alternatives? I haven't experimented much with my sandbox but I can try. It seems to me that aside from all the extraneous stuff that has been said at the talk page, the bottom line is the two names need to be separated. I will make suggestions in my own sandbox if I can figure out how to use it rather than post in the article. If I were wanting to just change the article myself, I would already have done so because I am well acquainted with the technical issues in disambiguating. I have not done anything to the article itself, just commented on the talk page thus far. The sad part about this situation is that there hasn't been enough written about the topic to help guide everyone which can be tempting for some to take advantage of, and it seems that most people who even have some knowledge on the issue are either part of the recordings, or confused (Lee R. professed some confusion & a desire to learn more in an article cited in the talk page), or dead (Burroughs, journalist Robert P, Gysin, P. Bowles - who wrote about B. Attar's group of master musicians recording with the Rolling Stones in his late 1980s Tangier journal called Days, etc.). You and I neither one feel like experts on the subject, and it is hard to act when one feels others may become angry. But as things stand now, it would be better to have no article at all than keep this the way it is, which could result in legal problems about names and such. I have stayed out editing the article itself thus far but I'll go do something in my sandbox when I can and will mention to you when I've got something to look at there or if I'm having trouble using my sandbox. Emerman 15:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Emerman. This is how i see it.

• MMOjou - Mohamed H.
• MMOjaj - B. Attar
• you cab start editing on your sandbox by clicking here.
• "joujou" spelling&diff=100668930&oldid=100084666 I've already prepared the disambig. I'll remove the redirect for the same reason. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Here you go MMOjaj. No need to use your sandbox if you want-- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[Refactored own comments after received email request Emerman 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)]:

Here is what I was trying to write before you wrote the above at the same time as me:

Additional comment: I can start by saying to begin with, you at the very least need one article called "MMOjaj" and one called "MMOjou". That would be for the disambiguation page table of contents. Within the MMof"jajou" spelling page you will likely have link to articles on people like "B. Attar" and "MMOjaj featuring B. Attar". Within the MMof"joujou" spelling page you would probably want to have a link to producer "Frank R." and a short article on him, which would have to follow the rules on not allowing people to write autobiographies but of course he can put on the talk page when something incorrect is written and maybe even correct errors; I don't remember the rules on that just now.

The current spelling of the album would normally be the way the album would be listed in Wikipedia, with a redirect from the old spelling and an explanation at the top of the page about both spellings and any controversy....because in the case of the album, there is only one album, not two, just two names. In the case of the two bands, that is different, there are two separate bands and need two separate listings. If someone disagrees then an experienced music admin needs to come in and explain this because what I've said about how to handle the album is correct wikipedia procedure. But I understand you are trying to get disambiguation started and that's good. Emerman 16:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the story Emerman and that's why i asked you to inform me further or edit yourselves the article. No worries, you can add to the disambig what you think is accurate. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'll try to work on it but I think that having at least started with the disambiguation that helps. It's very difficult for me too to figure out, not just you. Emerman 16:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I based my edits on this cover. We've just started the process Emerman. The important is that that parties agreed on splitting articles. Let's finish that first before tackling other issues. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That album cover is not from the current version in print and only the MMOjaj spelling of the same album is in print; the name change was done to prevent confusion. [Refactored own comments after received email request] Emerman 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to deal w/ that in a while. I am begining to understand the situation better. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a difficult situation to get a full grasp on. Emerman 16:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC) [Refactored my own comments due to email received Emerman 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)]

why is emerman the rewriting page in a bias contra to disambiguation? 134.226.1.194 00:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

To Dublin anonymous user, I'm not against the disambiguation. I wrote that note prior to getting the work done when I suddenly found an old article written by the admin, but realize now he did not have bias. Emerman 15:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It occurs to me the person in Dublin may be asking why I decided to go ahead and help edit the disambiguation after I said I didn't have time. Well, I don't have time to spend days on it, but I did decide to put one hard day's work into it after looking at the situation and it appears to me Szvest has acknowledged he didn't have time to do as much as he would have liked in the past on it. So I tried very hard to research everything and review everyone's concerns on the talk page and get the thing done right because I could see it has waited too long, as was remarked by someone previously. Plus I noticed what I thought was a problem at a particular article and it looked like my help was needed. Basically the two managers need to not edit, but they can send suggestions in talk pages. I wish I could get Frank R.'s advice on a book citation in fact. He probably has the book and knows the publisher and just forgot to write it down. But it's too messy a situation to have either manager editing articles about these particular topics given this particular sensitive situation. Emerman 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC) [Refactored my own comments due to email received Emerman 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)]

disambiguation that has begun

The two articles are now a blank slate as they both should be until disinterested parties not reporting rumor and slander or revising history in the encyclopedia can slowly rebuild them correctly. Also the First album is now spelled with the current spelling for the album that is in print today without attacks included. More can be done to all articles with proper editing, attention to NPOV, avoiding conflict of interest, no resorting to self-publications of "letters", and using proper citation style as we all begin to have time to work on these three articles properly abiding by wikipedia rules instead of taking advantage of the fact that most of the experienced editors here don't know a lot on this subject. [Refactored my comment due to email received Emerman 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)]

finished my stubs

I have finished the first wave of work with the disambiguations and updates for spelling consistency. I'll look for comments at my talk page and when I feel people are finished commenting, I will archive my talk page. I'm not interested in living my whole life on this subject and tried to get out of my way as much as I could today because I can't sit and work on this subject forever. I tried to adhere to NPOV. I agree with your having archived more contentious comments in the past at the article talk page. So when you eventually feel like the proper things have been done, feel free to clean up the talk page, though I would assume that will take a while before everyone's ready for a clean article talk page. I hope my hard work today is understood to have been done with fairness and wikipedia standards in mind, given there are album cover changes lots of times in rereleases and generally the original cover artist doesn't create an industry uproar. Any comments welcome at my page and when everyone's done, I'm archiving my talk page. Emerman 05:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC) [Refactored my comment due to email received Emerman 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)]

On second thought I decided it is intimidating for people to go to a page full of text to add a comment, so I archived the article talk page and explained the changes and explained that all comments had been considered during disambiguation and past comments are in the History file. I haven't archived my own personal talk page yet, but I will as soon as it seems people are finished talking to me about it. Emerman 06:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Article: Islamist Terrorism

Hi there,

I was wondering if you might be interested in the discussion taking place on the article "Islamist Terrorism"'s talk page.

In my opinion, "Islamist Terrorism" is inaccurate and represents a particular worldview. In short, the term is vacuous and fails to properly define the phenomenon.

I have suggested that we move the article to "Muslim Radicalism" which will more effectively describe the phenomenon and allow us to explore its socio-political roots beyond the simplistic definition of "terrorism".

Would you agree with such a definition?

Alexander.Hainy 12:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A minor mistake

Salam. How are you?

I found that you write "User talk:FayssalF: Islam in Al-Andalus and North Africa." in Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran/Expert Wikipedians in Iran-related issues so I moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Expert Wikipedians in Islamic issues. --Sa.vakilian 18:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Salam Sa.vakilian. Thanks for that. I didn't pay attention. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

2004 Madrid train bombings

Hi, FayssalF

Big, big problems in the article, again.

Could you please take a look to the history and to the talk page?.

Thank you. Randroide 09:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

re: references style

[Refactored my comment due to email received Emerman 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)]

I think I may have been mistaken about thinking it was preferred to use References instead of jump link footnotes. I am going to hunt through the Citation style section and see what the current thought is before I go and try to change everything back because it will be very difficult to do and it would mean I should have done that with other articles I wrote in the past too on other topics. I certainly found today some non-music related articles rated "A" in wikipedia that use jump links to Notes or References sections composed of Notes jump links. It's weird because I remember when an admin convinced me not to use them and so I took them out of some articles I'd worked hard on previously and turned them into References without jumplinks. That's a very time consuming process too. Emerman 03:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about tagging

I found that an article required mentioning the MMOJ manager Cherie N. because she did the album cover photography on the reissue on that First album, and the reissue's art needed to also be discussed since there was a section on the album cover change. Finishing that, I realized eventually someone would eventually add one of those red links to it as I've seen you do before, so I went ahead and started an article on her like I did for Frank R. and B. Attar. I spent a couple or three hours looking up info and I've tagged it with the living person bio tag. However because she entered the conversation in the Talk page on that MMOJ article, do you know how to tag for someone who may not have an actual log in but just an IP or whether it even needs one? Her IP is probably easy to find in the History file of the Talk page where she signed her message. I have never done that sort of tagging so I don't know how people do it if the person has never gotten a login. She obviously hasn't got one because being locked out was something she mentioned in the talk page she was worried about and she obviously she couldn't start a new account either. Those "lock" things are good to have though in these situations but they don't stop people who are already involved in edit warring with an old account from keeping going. Anyway, if you think any other tag needs to go in "Cherie N." article talk page, I am letting you know I started that article and got it over with.

I'm trying to finish but there is just way too much to do. I see I need to go put more meaningful info from the articles I've listed into the articles when I have time; right now they are bare bones skeletons. I plan to do it but I had to get the problem parts done right first. I will also need to go back and probably start changing my references to footnotes when I have a minute to breathe, using good citation style; will make sure by reading the citation style board that footnotes are the main way again (at one time, they weren't). Emerman 16:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Emerman. I don't see the need to add {{Notable Wikipedian}} to Talk:Cherie N.. First because she's just participated in a talkpage. Second because you say she used an IP and got no userpage. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what she's participated in without going to the talk page History file to match the IP with the old article history file, and then I'd need to also see if that IP has been used by others if it's a large company to edit other types of articles too such that it's not unique to her, but will at least note it down to compare in the future. If a problem develops in the future in articles, I can try to go to her company's website page or myspace page to contact her to suggest no direct editing by her on articles related to them or else to get a log in, so that a tag would be added to her editing page similar to the other manager's page's tag and even then the same issue of reminding her to avoid editing in the related articles would apply and hope both parties would mostly talk on talk pages when they have a comment related to their interests or feuds rather than start editing things related to themselves involving any hostile claims about someone else's career. If there is a problem in the future from either party with the articles becoming full of rumor or aspersions, then it may end up that several articles may need to be protected from both sides re: "locking" more than just users without accounts. Now I have to get back to the awful load of stuff left to do to finish what I started on half-started articles. I also found mistakes in what I started last night on Nutting's and Attar's individual things re: minor biographical info. I certainly hope people keep the articles free of inappropriate material the guidelines mention because wikipedia articles should not become a field for people to attack each other. I was impressed with the comments by Jimbo Wales I found in the guidelines on the preference of not ruining people's lives or reputations through careless or malicious editing. I think both of the two groups deserve respectful, thoughtful editing because wikipedia info spreads all over the place and it shouldn't be allowed to be misused for a smear agenda of anyone on either side of an issue. I think I'm learning more about these artists, their works, and their albums than i ever bargained on when i started this editing, ugh..but it's interesting. Emerman 23:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's interesting indeed and that what wikipedia is about. I just notice that you are concerned by bio guidelines which is a very good thing. However, the situation is not as dangerous as you may believe. Keeping an eye on those articles is sometimes sufficient. There exist Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for reporting bio incidents. So no need to worry a lot about that. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the down side of locking out newly created usernames if some pop up is that we could end up locking out some new unbiased, talented editor while trying to prevent people from sock puppetteering edits to articles. So I am not getting into that. I think that what I want now is to see if I can work directly with frank to get a clearer understanding of his band, if he will help me with that. I really think it's just very confusing and I am learning as I go. There is much to understand.

I'm in the middle of trying to correct somet things I posted tonight even now. For instance, when I see I have something up I wrote that I can't confirm with multiple sources I am going to remove it. Or if I see a wording not quite right, and the sources I use need to be good. And the worst thing is going to be having to go back and change the References into jump links. There will be some items that I will add to "further reading" instead of jump link footnotes if I see that footnotes are the way to go because some items I have added are actually just "further reading" items. When I see an article mentions Mohamed H., for instance, I go and add it to the References. I found two articles by Journalist Robt P. mentioning Mohamed H., for instance so I added them to the Mohamed H. article, and I am going to look for more now that I found a Moroccan Music Bibliography today. I'm confused by the Davis book because I have some records saying the second album was done in 1972 but it looks like the Davis book is talking about 1973. Anyway my edits are not capricious; I am trying hard with limited time. But sometimes I find I haven't quite done it right yet. I'm working on it. I know I haven't reacted perfectly in my tone in talk pages sometime but I mean well and I wish frank understood that. I don't have a lot of time for all this and I guess I got snappy the first day but I am trying to do the best work I possibly can in the articles. If he would help me understand things better in my talk page, I can try to help him understand why I make certain edits if he doesn't understand me. I am going by guidelines I printed out. Not being capricious but also applying the same rules to myself. When I see I make a mistake on my own edits, I correct them. Emerman 09:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Good work in overall Emerman. I believe Frank would be happy to coordinate w/ you and be willing to help. You can contact him via his email. You can use Google Scholar for your books' search (i.e Attar+attar%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 B. Attar, R.%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 Frank R.). -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTE....I only learned the past 24 hours that this stuff is archived in search engines and when I posted names I did not know that previously. I will not post names again without knowing it and thinking it through. Given that I assumed search engines avoid talk pages or take a long time to find them and I learned that actually they see many of the instantly I have refactored only names from long spellings to initials and shortened forms that you will know but which won't be looked up that way by accident in search engines. I am therefore uncomfortable with posting on talk pages now and will reconsider how or if I'll participate in them in the future. I did not refactor anything else (though I'd like to but it's not my page) but I must say that at least half of what I've said above I have differing views on than what I said when I initially wrote it now that I've spent time editing these things. I now think I was confused about some things. Therefore very little on this page has much to do with what I currently think, and another half of it is redundant excess. I am also going directly for info to the "joujou" spelled band's producer for trying to understand his views better. Emerman 01:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That's true. You can use initials henceforth and i'll know the person you're talking about :) -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Rasheed Wallace in List of Muslim Converts

Hi FayssalF! You restored our good friend Rasheed Wallace in the above-mentioned article, providing a source. However, while it is almost certain Wallace is a Muslim, the doubts point is thus: is he a convert, or was he born a Muslim? The source you provided established him a Muslim, but does not claim he has ever converted... What do you think? Regards. Mrbluesky 15:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, salut and hola Mrbluesky. That's correct. Thanks for the note. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read you quick (and polite!)feedback. I have reverted the article accordingly. Thanks, and shukran! Mrbluesky 16:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A pleasure. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page notation inviting people to list suggestions/issues related to the "MM of Joujouka" article if there are any

Although I dislike talk pages, I reviewed emails from opiumjones23 today and got the impression I should put up a note asking for his suggestions on what else, if anything, needs to go in the article to make sure he can explain anything he disagrees with, using good sources. I plan to read everything he suggests I read asap. I hope everyone concerned is able to figure this out according to citation style and reliable source guidelines, without angry posts. [Refactored my comment due to email received Emerman 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)] Emerman 13:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

POV edits and deletions

This is a formal warning regarding your systematic bias and POV pushing re your deletions of sourced material. Please behave and stop your personnal attacks on muslims as you did above. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have restored tendentious junk to Wikipedia.[1]Proabivouac 10:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use ironic statements and enhance the content instead of reverting edits massively. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fayssal. I am going to use EoI article to add an overview of historical development of Islamic ethics. I agree that it needs a lot of work, but I believe it is an encyclopedic topic for Encyclopedia of Ethics, Encyclopedia of Islam and Encyclopedia of the Qur'an have articles on that. Thanks again. --Aminz 11:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use ironic statements and enhance the content instead of revertinge dits massively. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Formal warning?" FayssalF, I ask you to substantiate your otherwise vacuous allegation of "personal attacks on Muslims." It sounds rather like a threat to abuse your "mop."

Similarly, "POV pushing" - might you point to any edit of mine which advanced a POV?Proabivouac 10:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

which I suppose is precisely why Muslims don't waste too much time recounting the deeds of Muhammad and his companions? is an inflamatory and unnecessary comment to respond and to attack one of contributors. Deleting sourced content that you don't agree w/ just and saying that it is unsourced in your edit summary is considered vandalism. Actually your POV edits are all revert warring or random tagging like this. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF, your threats do not impress me. It is a fact that you've the tools to block, but you've no basis to do so. The only result of this exchange has been, besides the fact that you've just restored tendentious junk to mainspace (has it crossed your mind, incidentally, that you may not both involve yourself in a content dispute and also issue a "formal warning"? p.s. getting a friend to do it doesn't change that), that I have lost some measure of respect I'd had for you as a erstwhile reasonable editor. You ought to know better.Proabivouac 11:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that i am not the one who would block your account if you persist in your POV pushing, personal attacks and tendious editing. Note also that what you call junk (which is you personal view) which you removed is sourced and encyclopaedic respecting wikipedia policies and guidelines. Restoring and fixing that junk doesn't mean i am into a content dispute. Please behave and assume good faith. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Pretty weak, Fayssal F. "An essay is an essay; it is neither "POV" nor "random" to observe this. Whereas if we were to compile a list of Aminz' POV edits, it would span many pages. So are you going to block me for tagging an essay as an essay? Do me the favor, at least, of allowing me to discuss this with you on WP:ANI before it happens, shall you? Something tells me your proposed block cannot survive the light of day.

"...saying that it is unsourced in your edit summaryis considered vandalism."

That's a joke if I've ever heard one. Good faith edits aren't vandalism, period. My tendentious editting? The essay tag, is that the best you've got? FayssalF, I have no tendentious editting, as you have just proved.

"Note also that what you call junk (which is you personal view) which you removed is sourced and encyclopaedic respecting wikipedia policies and guidelines."

At least the second half of it appears to be wholly unsourced, as you'd be aware had you read it before reverting.

"Note that i am not the one who would block your account if you persist in your POV pushing..."

Well, who would be, except someone you asked (by e-mail, IRC, etc.)? It's not as if there is some wildfire grass roots sentiment against Proabivouac. Yours is the first such threat I've heard, so if some random admin were to come around and do it, there'd be little doubt as to who would be behind it.

"Restoring and fixing that junk doesn't mean i am into a content dispute."

LOL!Proabivouac 11:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

False evidence

FayssaIF, why do you present basically false and misleading "evidence" to the readers of the RfC regarding Proabivouac? One example is this diff: [2] which you in the RfC present to the community with the words "Misleading edit summaries using the term "moving" while the action was "removing" sourced material.". I find it pretty hard to assume good faith and believe that you don't knew about the next edit Proabivouac made three minutes after, readding the quote in a new place on that article? There was nothing misleading about his edit summary, and I think you know that. Now why don't you do the right thing and remove the false evidence and strange "evidence" that you have included in that RfC, and apologize about this to the readers there? -- Karl Meier 19:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF, why have you not answered Karl's inquiry? Have you no regrets at all for having misrepresented the evidence (knowingly or not)? I am quite certain that, had I done this, I'd have stricken (not deleted) the contested comments. How many endorsements of your summary were based upon uncritical acceptance of your veracity? It is one thing to have made a mistake; it is quite another to refuse to admit it, even when you are aware that you've unjustly stained another's reputation.Proabivouac 10:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just seen the message Proabivouac. I've stricken that at the RfC and explained that at its talk page. My apologies for that. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Appreciated, but please strike the diff at issue. I would never lie in an edit summary.Proabivouac 11:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome. I see it now. Fixed. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick note about adding links

Hey, I don't mean to add aggravation to your day given the stressful stuff I just saw on your page here from your other current conversations, but just a quick notation about adding new red links. I noticed an inexperienced Dublin user who has edited the MMOJouj talk page and article in the past looked like he got confused from seeing you start red links often and this person added a bunch more links to titles without considering whether the items qualified for notability or whether it is not appropriate for a person to add a link for an article to be started about himself. I'm mentioning it to you because I think your example in adding red links so often may occasionally not consider that either and he is trying to learn from example. [ Refactored my comment due to email received Emerman 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)]

RfC

Fayssal, since this page is still a candidate page and not officially added, I would be thankful if you could wait a bit so that I can also edit it as well. Thanks --Aminz 08:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi Fayssal. Just wanted to point out to you that this is happening, in case you feel like sticking your oar in. Palmiro | Talk 22:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Master Musicians of Joujouka 1971? 1967? 1950?

User Svest Admin on MMO J and related , I think, has been emailed scans of the sleave notes including artist credits for Master Musicians of Joujouka Brian Jones presents the Pipes of Pan at Joujouka, Rolling Stones Records 1971.

The Lp was recorded in 1967 and released in 1971.That puts Emermans assertion that this group cant include this disc in their discography in a different light.

Furthermore and much more importantly it proves that the name was being used by a Hamri group nearly 30 years before Emermans credited date of "forming" in the MMOJoujouka article.

In light of just this several of Emermans "facts" will have to be changed across all the pages he has been editing. opiumjones 23 20:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry svest if this posting leads to your page being filled further. opiumjones 23 23:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

am about to get to the footnoting to help people evaluate the articles

I will try immediately to add citations to my work now and review it for mistakes. Then people can assess if it is screwed up. I think it's hard to tell from a list of References without footnoting in this situation where people have strong feelings.

My article edits were good faith. I am wracking my brains trying to be accurate, digging for sources, and researching. Sometimes I have to reword when I realize I have not gotten a good source and am going on something someone claimed. They have taken me great trouble to do going to the library. I tried also to get some info from Frank in email. [ Refactored my comment due to email received Emerman 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)]

Question

I saw the tag on the album article. How does that work? I am still trying to get to researching the footnotes on all things I've been working on and will be putting marks for "cite needed" where appropriate. I didn't have time to do this last night like I wanted. Once I'm done trying to add footnotes and requests for cites via tags, I'll be also asking people questions on how to proceed further for more info. It seems like another trip to the library is needed to get even more info. I would also like to know whether spurious claims result in tags if someone says something just hoping to get it tagged and what the tag means. You didn't give me any info on what you want done to the article. Is there a help file on how to improve an article where someone is claiming something is wrong without any basis? If you have received the album cover, what is the point of what seeing it meant to you? I have ordered a copy of the same album myself in fact. How does your privately receiving an album cover from a producer from Sub Rosa imply that there's something wrong with what's in the article? The album cover does not state anything implying there is ownership of the album by the person illustrating the album cover, nor would it on any other album by any other band, and the claim on the talk page you relied on for the tag soesn't make sense. [ Refactored my comment due to email received Emerman 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)] Emerman 15:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The tag informs the readers that there's an ongoing debate about factual accuracy re an article. If you read Opiumjones 23's last comment on my talkpge which i've just posted on the article talk page, you'll understand that there's an issue re the album. The issue should be discussed on the talkpage in order for you and Opiumjones23 to reach a concensus. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. In noticing Jonur's new link to the 1989 Palmer story, it was a lot easier to read the whole thing by PDF and I found a reference to Hamri's guiding Gysin back in the 1950s so that will help me cite. Also info about Burroughs visiting in next page. I didn't see Hamri's name even mentioned at all in the article when skimming through it before but that is a help now that I saw the PDF at p. 105. However, I think the guidelines said we are not supposed to link to places violating copyrights of publications, so while I downloaded the PDF and highly recommend the article, I will ask at the help desk if the guidelines said we can or can't directly link to a site hosting things in violation of copyright. I certainly want to reference the article though for the info about Hamri taking Gysin to the mountain. The spelling is relevant to Frank's comments since BA is who is interviewed. I'll reread but I don't see anything there about Hamri managing something. I notice the 1971 pre-album release spelling used by the same author isn't scanned at the same site (frank's). Palmer also used the "jou" spelling right after the album came out prior to the 1989 article too, but that has no bearing on anything. He also used the "ja" spelling in 1992. I think we should certainly keep the link in the actual talk page at the very least regardless of what we are allowed to do in the story via guidelines on copyright. Will check. Emerman 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC) (more info added) Emerman 16:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your explanation of tag, thanks for the explanation. Emerman 16:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

These info are the ones that you should present at the article talkpage to sort out that issue. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am in the middle of trying to do that, thanks. You haven't given me time. Emerman 16:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't be in a rush and make sure you take your time. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

About the ongoing Joujouka/Jajouka story

Feelings seem to be running very strong here, perhaps mirroring the bad blood between the two groups of musicians in the village. I also feel that Emerman is trying to do too much too quickly – at least she/he seems to be under tremendous pressure, for reasons which I cannot imagine (is there a deadline for getting the facts right on Wikipedia?).

Responding to some of the factual content in the above note by Emerman:

1.

The year the word Joujouka is first used is not relevant to the fact the record industry, the rolling stones band, Rolling Stone Magazine (1989 interview), and record labels (Laswell's, Peter Gabriel's, and Point Music rerelease of P of P album) recognized Bachir A's group as being successor.

- Specifically, I quote from that same "Robert Palmer Rolling Stone article dated March 23rd 1989". On page 184, beginning of third paragraph, it says "Jnuin, the old chief, is dead, and it is his son, twenty-seven-year-old Bachir Attar, who greets me as I slide off the burro." Nowhere does Palmer say anything like "Bachir, who succeeded his father" or "Bachir, the new leader of the MMoJ". Curiously also, he uses the Joujouka spelling throughout, though that is another battle. - If recognition by a record label is to be taken as a sign of legitimacy, Sub Rosa is a perfectly reputable record company with a notable track record. Therefore, the fact that it published several CDs by the MMoJou should also confer legitimacy on them, by the same token. - The fact that the Rolling Stones or anyone else worked with Bachir Attar is not, of itself, absolute proof that his faction is the only legitimate one (much as he would like).

2.

The members of B. Attar's group were all from his father's group

.

Evidently. Every single musician in the village was from his father's group. So the group that recorded on Sub Rosa were also "all from Bachir's father's group". The problem is, apparently, that not all the musicians were willing to accept Bachir as leader upon the death of his father. And that also casts doubts on the idea that leadership of the MMoJ is passed on automatically from father to son. Was Jnuin preceded by his father in turn?

Without extra good sourcing we can't just go taking the album out of one band's discog and put it into another's.

Until the death of old Jnuin, there was apparently only one group, and only one shared history. When the "Brian Jones presents" album was recorded on 29th July 1968 and released on 8 October 1971, there was only one group of MMoJ. Therefore, both groups currently operating in the village are heirs to that recording and to the ancestral heritage. Incidentally, you can see what is apparently the release notes and insert of the original "Brian Jones presents the Pipes of Pan..." 1971 LP issue "here".

While I have been writing this, I notice some new messages on this page. My comments - if it is not permitted to reference sites that are in breach of copyright, I will remove the links I added earlier to the Oui and Palmer articles. However, they are useful background information, so I hope they will inform this whole issue.

Again, Emerman, I think you need to take your time. This is not a life and death issue, and rushing things can only be counterproductive. Yours in good faith, and peace. Jonur 16:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jonur. Thanks for the message. I've just started a section at the article talkpage to sort out the issue. Please participate (Talk:Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Jajouka#The debate over factual accuracies). -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to reply here when I kept getting interrupted with edit conflicts. [ Refactored my comment due to email received Emerman 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)]

I did not get a chance to add it but Palmer used the "ja" spelling in 1971 and 1992. He used the Brian Jones spelling a 1971 review of the album after it came out and again in a 1989 article interviewing Bachir Attar while talking about the band, and he talked to him as representative of the group regardless of how you try to turn that into something else if you just look at the facts instead of twist them.

(Added after a breather). I am going to try to get my footnoting done and was just getting worn out from reading some of the comments here but let me have a chance to work on it and I will try to take my time. But eventually we'll probably need to have help and reviews. I just am trying to get a chance to work on it and I keep having to reply to these comments people make to me. Thanks to both of you guys for menitoning I should take my time. I will now try to get back to it and to finish my part in this.Emerman 17:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

reply re: link to item hosted on site not official to publication

Dear Fayssal, please read the link you sent me to. It states: "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors."

This is the issue I was concerned about. Emerman 17:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, i was not following your idea and comment. I believe we should deal w/ one thing at once. I know understand what you were refering to. However, i don't see the web site which is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright. Could you explain that to me further? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The link is ok to put in the talk page, not in the article. I believe people cannot just upload scans of a publication's articles like that. Lots of people do it but we can't link to them in articles. We can put the link in the talk page. Unless he wants to show us a letter showing Rolling Stone gave him a special permission to upload it on his page. The link was put in the MMJaj article by Jonur, meaning well. It's fine to have the link in the talk page as a research aid. Emerman 17:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that a permission to publish the article was not given to joujouka.net? The second thing is that you cite Palmer, Robert (March 23, 1989). "Into the Mystic". Rolling Stone without giving a link to joujouka.net. So there's no mention to the link. What you did is clearly legitimate. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I first added the reference to the Bob Palmer article well before any "link" was told to me. Please check the article history on master musicians of jajouka. I put the reference to the article in before knowing of an online link, which Jonur added later. I have photocopies from microfilm of all the Palmer articles and a Strauss article and others from going to the library. Please do not accuse me of doing something improper. As for how do I know he didn't get permission, the point of the rule is that unless it's an official site for the publication we're not supposed to be linking to an article. That has been my understanding of what the rule means regarding people uploading their own scans. I can upload a scan of articles too but I can't have them linked to in articles. I don't think I always knew of that rule until a few months ago and so often many people who are not used to it do link to unofficial page links. The only link that is official is one provided by the publication unless it says "used with permission". Unless you find I'm mistaken about this. [ Refactored my comment due to email received Emerman 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)]

I have removed those two links to pages containing copyrighted material. OK. However, I am beginning to doubt Emerman's impartiality or willingness to debate this thing calmly. Rather than discussing that material (even though it is copyrighted), she/he makes a big thing about violation of Wikipedia rules. If she/he were sure it was a violation, why didn't she/he just remove the links directly? After all, that's what Wikipedia is all about. I have been reluctant to make significant changes to any of the Jajouka/Joujouka related pages precisely because everything ends up on the battlefield. That is why I have preferred to post comments on talk pages in the hope of discussing the issues before posting on the actual pages.

Emerman, you are over-reacting, over-stressed. And you write too much, making it difficult to keep up the debate (you regularly clock 1000 words in your comment entries). And you appear to give much more credit to one side of this debate than to the other. Bear in mind that we are talking about a band of illiterate musicians from a village which did not have a tarmac road until a few years ago - most of the written sources are by Westerners, and most of them do not speak Arabic or Berber (I'm not sure what they speak up there). However, you automatically give the benefit of the doubt to one side of the debate, and impose the burden of proof on the other. If we are to apply your standards, we would have to get Bachir Attar's birth certificate to be sure he really is the son of the former head of the musicians, and then do a family tree of the whole village (not a bad idea, actually).

I appreciate that you are about to move house, may be ill, have to look after your parents (as you have mentioned in talk pages in the last few days). However, rushing this is not going to solve anything. Don't try to impose the calendar of your personal life on this controversy. Jonur 18:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(Had edit conflict and couldn't get this message to Fayssal in before Jonur wrote above):

FayssalF, in case I'm mistaken, let's just wait to remove any link till the rule is known. I do not care if the link goes on it; I had thought the rule was meant to go to official publication sites or sites with permission but I suppose I could ask Rolling Stone if it's permissible and then leave it at that; maybe RS will say it's fine. If not we can link to it in the talk page. I simply put the link in the article talk page thinking that was how to do it.

Also, re: my concerns about facts earlier, I'll assume there may be much to learn by simply sitting down with everything and going through. Maybe we can establish a connection between both groups to the supposed shared history. That is why I had it written that way to begin with. If not, then people in the future will correct it as we go. You and Jonur are right to suggest I take my time. I just want to be done with my work footnoting. I will work on that. You can wait to add tags about disputed items I suggested until I have more time to think about whether I want to pursue that. Maybe I'll stop worrying that I can't trust many of the things I've been accepting as true. That is what got me perturbed about the article. That I had been accepting a lot of things without going beyond assertions made by a producer instead of citing sources. Maybe it will turn out things are not that bad as I was thinking when I wrote the above. Emerman 18:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(And I revised my request for tagging to be till later if we need it after we work more on the articles; I have a lot of footnoting to do.) Emerman 18:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jonur, since I was addressing FayssalF above, to you I say, you can put the link into the article if you think it is ok on copyright. I have to learn the stupid copyright rule better. I agree my answers are too long. And yes, I have stress in my life and am tired. I agree the point is that these things take time, whether I will be around to help finish this or not. At least I can try to footnote what I've done and then leave it to others to work out. I was trying to explain above that I haven't been sure about many items I copied in from the original version and assumed were true. As for Bachir Attar's birth certificate, we have many articles confirming he is the son of Jnuin, but we have nothing saying that in any publication re: the other group regarding their having played in the other band. The record label at Point Music may be able to clarify a few things, but I haven't had time to check on anything at the moment. I just want to deal with footnotes at the moment.Emerman 18:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I've just been plain confused today. We do have about two articles showing publications think the "joujouka" spelled folks are master musicians of the village so I will feel safe with my previous inclusion of them having a "shared" history without worrying about it so much. I was getting to the point today I was so confused that I felt a need to get a source for everything. I hope good researchers come in to look over things in future months too. To Jonur and Fayssalf, sorry I have been stressed out but I couldn't get any footnoting done while answering all this and wanted to do that and move on to other things. Emerman And by the way, as I mentioned to you a minute ago elsewhere, I am the one who put the info about the claimed shared heritage of both groups so I have indeed in my article edits tried to look at it from the Sub Rosa band's point of view when I began trying to help disambiguate. I just got worn out trying to source things. Sorry. Emerman 19:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Emerman. My comment about Bachir's birth cert was meant as a joke. :-) One thing which I have tried to say before, but maybe not clearly enough, is that your search for published sources of everything may be thwarted in this case by the fact that the history has not yet been written. In fact, the bulk of the controversy here is over who gets to write the history. My reading of the situation is that the JA crowd want to write the JOU crowd out of the history book entirely. Meanwhile, the JOU crowd do not deny the JA crowd's heritage or legitimacy as fellow MMoJ, just that BA is not the "one true king" and he does not have the exclusive right to use the name, much less deny it to them. Much of what matters is probably in the form of private documents (if it is documented at all), and there are things that cannot be said on a public forum for libel reasons, but they are things that happened nonetheless and have coloured the relations between the two groups. I can't be more specific in public. Jonur 22:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jonur, Please don't reply to me at this page any further because I may never see it if you do. I won't be logging in much and wouldn't look here at someone else's page for a reply from you. Drop me a note at my own page if you want me to some day see it or send email notification.

And yes, I think someone with the Ja crowd tried to write the Jou crowd out of a story which I reverted to include the Jou folks again, but the same had been done to them previously by having only the JOU band name in wikipedia for both bands. You seem to have forgotten everything that happened in the years prior to recent disambiguation. It's easy enough for us to revert biased edits where one party takes the other out of the village history or at least semiprotect the pages from unregistered users to prevent that in the future. The fact both bands are from the village however does not mean both bands have the same albums in their discography and that is what could require the record label to make a statement here to clarify in the talk page. [ Refactored my comment due to email received Emerman 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)]

Can you lend a hand with Canary Islands history

Hi Fayssal, how u doin? I found Canary Islands in pre-colonial times in the backlog of articles to wikify. It needs work. I would have thought that it should exist, if at all, as a sub-article of History of the Canary Islands. But History of the Canary Islands just redirects to Canary Islands. I don't know how to undo the redirect. Does all this make sense? Can you help out with the structure of articles and then I will work on them a bit. Thanks.Itsmejudith 22:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am fine Judith. Thanks for the note. I expanded a bit the lead and added references. I also redirected History of the Canary Islands to it. I'll work on the article later today. See you there. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandlaim

Is it normal this ip 155.219.241.10 hasn't been blocked? Did you see the contributions? Embargo 18:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The IP was warned. No disruptive edits were made after that. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How would you advise I proceed in this situation?

Hi,

As I understand it, fair use of an image is considered permissible for critical commentary on the work in question, the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or the school to which the artist belongs.

The use of Norman Rockwell's painting of Ruby Bridges in the Norman Rockwell article probably meets the criteria but the use of the same image in the Ruby Bridges article does not meet any of these criteria.

It seems to me, therefore, that the image should be kept but the use of the image in the Ruby Bridges article should be removed.

Do you agree? Should I just be bold and delete the image or should I start a discussion somewhere? If the latter, where should that discussion be held?

Richard —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 22:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi Richard. Nice to hear from you again. I doubt the picture is part of Fair Use policy. Anyways, i've just forwarded and posted your query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia talk:Copyrights and Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. I m sure we'll get an answer. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomination for coordinator

Hi Fayssal

I wanted to inform you that I would like to nominate you as candidate for the coordinator election. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/February 2007

Greatings Wandalstouring 23:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wandalstouring. I appreciate your trust on me. It's a pleasure. I've had a look at some of the tasks involved and think it is quite a huge responsibility though very interesting. I will have some time reviewing them before i decide on that before January 29th, 2007. I'll get back to you soon. Cheers. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

concern about anonymous IPs

FayssalF, please notice if there are anonymous IP vandalisms occurring at the jajouka or related pages. A few days ago I stopped editing articles, which means I don't look at the things any more to revert vandalisms by people taking people's names out. I saw in my watch list that Jonur had possibly had to revert another anon IP edit recently (the edit description said so in my watchlist for jajouka) and I had to do that same thing a couple of days ago before I quit editing. My concern is that I will be mistaken for the anonymous IP people who do things like take Hamri or frank's band out of the jajouka village page. Clearly they both belong in there.

My edit history displays that among my final article edits (as opposed to talk page edits) I reverted anonymous IP edits made at the village article my reversions reinstated references to Hamri and frank's band only a couple of days ago before I stopped editing. If you don't semi-protect, then I am afraid someone will mistake me for anonymous IPs since I had removed myself from editing articles two or so days ago.

I don't want to have to come back in and start editing articles to prevent vandalism. So please semi-protect anything related with anonymous IP problems. Otherwise notate that I requested it and leave me out of whatever goes on in there. Emerman 03:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Emerman. No worries, i am keeping an eye to maintain NPOV and accuracy. Just set you email account on in case we'd contact you. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I hope you or a pleasant, courteous, disinterested party will do mediation at the MMOJ page articles, rather than non-admin novices. I don't want to have my stress levels up so that i have to go to a doctor. You have not made me feel stressed in your dealings with me and if you are too busy I hope you find good admins to help everyone there. The comments to me I've noticed lately in the debate page have been upping my stress level but I'll see if I can help the person understand where I'm coming from. I'd like to not have to keep logging in here. Emerman 03:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Followup -- please note that you are the person who asked to have any needed changes in the MMOJ articles discussed on the issue of seeking consensus in the MMOJ articles. As yet no one has had a chance to discuss what facts need to change. I understand that mediators at wikipedia are admins normally, not people who are not admins. You are an admin.. You are the person who asked to achieve consensus, so please continue with your work or designate an admin (not a novice, combative person). The only two people who need to cool down now are me and "tuathal" until you notice anyone else arguing - no one else is arguing. The rest of them should discuss what changes need making (if they can find where to do it) and seek consensus with you on the changes or edit them without further interruptions. If people don't have any facts they want changed in a few weeks then tags would be irrelevant and need removing. I have no interest being in the eventual article changes consensus debate if we ever see a debate other than me and T bantering about cooldowns relevant only to himself and me. If everyone else is also quiet for 2 weeks fine, but the others have nothing to cool down about. Emerman 08:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV and accuracy templates are not set to remain forever on articles. Normally, after a period of a couple of weeks, if nobody discusses the issues at the talk pages, tags and templates get removed. So no worries about that. I'll do my best. I'll also ask for an admin help if needed. I hope you get well soon. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's up to you folks. Consensus discussions, if any arise, might at least start by two weeks from now though with whoever discusses. Tag removing might wait longer if needed in case some are thinking they need to wait 2 weeks to talk due to what someone visiting in there told people to do. I just don't want to have to go look in any more (health, work reasons) and I hope everyone has a courteous discussion eventually (with oversight on courtesy), sticking to consensus on the articles instead of personal attacks and tangent accusations about editors who may all have had good faith. I presume good faith from FR too if he is wanting to work things out with the other party. I appreciate T's good faith cooldown period in some ways (although everyone but he and I have had a cooldown period since disambiguation began but there can be a longer one). If you need to reply to this remark, no need to duplicate the reply at my page (I'll see) but do drop me a line if something new needs my attention (email might help me know). And this note isn't requiring a reply. I just want to forget about all this and work on my life.

I like the change to "sometimes spelled" just as you changed it. Just an oversight by me. I would have eventually seen that and would have made the exact same change if I'd kept editing, but I never got finished with what I began. That wasn't about npov though, just accuracy and consistency between articles, and there could be more I missed. (I was trying to figure out what the history was as I went, wasn't easy to sort out, then forgot some spots that needed correcting from one page to another). Saw that on the watchlist clicking "diff" but I mostly don't want to look at what changes are being made though because of stress and hope to put these topics behind me. Emerman 14:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Yes, I'm Moroccan. I bet you're one yourself. :) Salam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabertooth (talk • contribs)

Yes and I am from Tétouan but living in Casablanca. And you? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm from the neighbouring Chefchaouen, and have always lived here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabertooth (talk • contribs)

Cool. If you need any help just contact me. Follow the instructions above by User:Koveras to sign your messages. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixing this mess

"I believe that nobody is perfect. If we have learned something it is that Islam-related articles have been a battleground between multiple parties (it includes POV pushing from both sides who lack AGF, and a tiny neutral editing). Maybe it is the right time to fix this mess."

I agree with all of this. I think the first step is to honestly acknowledge that some of us here are very into Islam in a way that alienates non-Muslim editors and that some of us are either skeptical of or hostile to Islam in a way that alienates Muslim editors, and to accept that we all have to - and should - work together despite this. We cannot wish this away. Instead, we must ask how we can channel these impulses in constructive directions. I also believe that we must stop accusing one another of being religious fanatics or bigots and correspondingly to refrain from userpage or talk posts which might used by already distrustful opposing editors to support these findings. These latter are a major cause of factionalisation and contribute little to the encyclopedia. And I believe we all must refrain from Wikilawyering, because this kills trust. I don't mean that we shouldn't refer to policy, but that we be forthcoming about our motivations in any given situation, and consistently reach out to people with whom we often disagree. The culture of this space cannot be cured by legalistic or prosecutorial measures.Proabivouac 10:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pro. I am glad to hear your message and agree with everything stated above. I think we have finally reached the core of the problem and ready to proceed.

I have a few ideas that may help us reach this objective. I'll be sending you an email very soon suggesting ways to implement them. You can give your opinion or if you already have suggestions yourselves you can email me first. I truly believe We Can Work It Out. Cheers. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

arbitration commitee

Would you join an arbitration commitee to solve an ongoing dispute? See Pontic Greek Genocide and User talk:LordAmeth#Pontic Greek Genocide for more information. Wandalstouring 13:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems like there is an agreement to accept the offer, however, people want to interview you beforehand. See ongoing discussion at Talk:Pontic Greek Genocide#Arbitration commitee. Wandalstouring 13:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest issue is that every commitee member writes a short personal introduction about himself and answers some questions. Wandalstouring 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Imam Ali's picture

Salam alaykum . Kayfa anta? I found that you put picture of Imam Ali in your user page. I just want to mention you that this is an imaginary portrait.--Sa.vakilian 02:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sa.vakilian. Yeah :) but i do like it. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy that you like Imam Ali but I just want to remind that's what Iranians have added to Islam. --Sa.vakilian 10:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I just don't understand why some Muslims do not like Ali. I am not a devout Muslim as i don't practice but most Moroccans respect Ali more than you think. Ali, Hassan and Mohammed Ali are widely used as names in Morocco indeed. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Boulevard des jeunes musicians.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Berber

Hi, if you're interested in creating a tacelḥit or Tarifit wikipedia (I just know you're moroccan), please contact me on my talk page, I'll help you in all the required steps, I am actually a kabyle, if you want to have a look at our test : [3], [4]. Don't be afraid to request a wikipedia in your language, wikipedias in contructed languges exist, wikipedias in languges with less than 100 000 speakers exist, and both tarifit and tacelphit have more than 2 million speakers, Regards. Toira 22:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Toira. You are doing a great job and i am very glad to witness the creation of the Tamazight Wikipedia. I've had a look at it a few weeks ago and was impressed. But it is a real pitty that i can't edit as i don't know any of the Tamazight languages :((( I can help w/ uploading images from commons. I am also thinking that it may be the right time to start learning Tamazight :) Do you know User:Read3r. He is a Berber and surely can help the project. Please update and guide me. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Shiite-Sunni distribution map

Salam.

What should we do about this map:Image:Shiite-1.jpg. A robot put this message in my talk page:User talk:Sa.vakilian#Orphaned fair use image (Image:Shiite-1.jpg)--Sa.vakilian 10:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you consult Wikipedia talk:Image use policy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use to get a broader opinion. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Countries you don't like

Ur comments on my page Khalid. Could you please have a look at this and give your arguments why you still can keep this contentious content on your userpage? Cheers . Dear they were not ready to talk rather then they brough that matter to take step and they took, so it is time wasiting to aruge for some thing like this. Read this This is nothing to be discussed, as pointed out on WP:ANI, that is not a legitimate use of the userspace. It is inflamatory, and adds nothing to the encyclopedia. Please don't accuse me of vandalising. ViridaeTalk 10:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC). Do u still want to me Disscuss it (they support each other backs)

Khalidkhoso 15:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, concerned users usually give their opinions on matters that concern them. Of course it was up to you to respond or not or to argue or not. In this case, the issue was related to WP:USERPAGE and administrators usually come to a decision quickly as the situation doesn't need many arguments because the policy is quite clear. Please note that not only you who've seen the content in question removed from their userpages but many others. Now, i'd suggest that you focus on editing (the main reason you are here) and forget the issue unless you have something to argue about. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Moroccan history articles

Hi, I have recently contributed some articles on Morocco tho' not a participant of WP:MAROC, namely Aghmat, Bou Hamara, El Hiba and rewrite of T'hami El Glaoui. I'm not a Moroccan (or French or Spanish) so I hope they meet with approval from those "sur le champs" ... anyway, I have noticed that there are 2 articles on same subject but different names: Bargawata and Berghouata. What to do? First has less detail but is more accurate, second has more detail but factual errors. Also neither title is a good English transliteration, should be Barghawata I think. I am willing to do the work to merge if you give advice about what would be best. MisterCDE 03:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi and welcome MisterCDE. Thanks for the message. I appreciate your work. I agree that Barghawata is the most accurate name (see map here). I therefore merged the 2 articles and moved Berghouata to Barghawata. Have a look at it and fix things you think they should be fixed. You've done great work indeed for the rest of the articles mentioned above. I've copy edited Aghmat and will have a look at the rest later on. Do not hesitate to contact me if you need any help or if you are willing to edit more articles. See you around. Cheers. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments FayssalF. I made some small addition to Barghawata, also fixed a factual error I made on Aghmat page. I will do what I can to add/change more articles, even thought of tackling Marrakech problem, but altho' I have visited Morocco on occasions my specialty is really Middle Ages so I don't feel particularly qualified on current events, geography etc. Best wishes, MisterCDE 04:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts as well. I believe History of Morocco needs a lot of work. I just can't find the appropriate time to deal w/ it. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello again ... I notice you have had some hand in the page on Uqba ibn Nafi. Is it appropriate to have half the page given over to Gibbon's account, which is riddled with Gibbon's own POV and which is fairly out-of-date? See my update to Umayyad conquest of North Africa where I added a section on the problems associated with this period of history (unfortunately my session timed out so it got added under my IP address instead of username). Best wishes, MisterCDE 04:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I added another historical account to have a balance. Please check. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... its an improvement, but I wouldn't use Ibn Idhari myself, the Tunisian historian H. R. Idris has shown that for the conquest of the Maghreb he just copied directly or indirectly from ar-Raqiq or al-Maliki a couple of centuries before. Also, you've linked Ibn Idhari to someone else with the same nisba? The problem with Gibbon is that he wrote in the 18th century so his sources are poor ("the grateful Akbah unlocked his fetters" is incorrect to my knowledge, according to most versions Abu al-Muhadjir decided to die wearing his chains), also he is notorious for writing everything with a very cynical and sarcastic POV (although fun to read) (not just my POV, its general - refer article Edward Gibbon). I think he is used in Wikipedia only because he is out of copyright rather than his quality, I'd discourage that. I might do something with Uqba myself sometime, but not right now. Best wishes. MisterCDE 01:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

reply

I have replied on my page and explained I'll try to learn more terms than vandalism for situations like the one I encountered. Thanks. Emerman 17:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I explained my concern about the edit previously on a talk page and it appeared to be the proper term under the circumstances. However, I will try to use other terms whenever possible for such situations. Side note: I am annoyed I am having to keep working on these articles due to apparent non-neutrality of people involved in editing them since I left. I will at least try to give some proper footnotes to help people get the articles better. Once the articles have footnotes, I'll probably remove tags I added. In the footnoting process we may decide certain sentences won't belong any more (although more info might), and I will keep NPOV and harmony at the forefront. I would like however to pack and move; I have family members affected by my being delayed and they sometimes comment to me about my loss of time on wikipedia. Thanks for the info on "vandalism". Emerman 17:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your lack of time to dedicate to editing :) -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a policy that says we're supposed to copy our entire conversations to each other's talk page instead of just replying or is this just a courtesy up to each person? I have seen at least one other person besides you doing that lately. I can't say I have memorized all the policies. Let me know. Thanks. Emerman 18:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll not paste both your question and my reply there this time :) I personally do that in order to facilitate the reading of the threads for me and for anyone who'd read my talkpage. There's no guideline re the issue. If you have noticed my User:FayssalF/ArchivesBox on top of my talkpage you'll understand that it is up to the user. Some users prefer to reply on their talkpages instead. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Please DO NOT VOTE yet

Ah, no problem. I've tried to make the notice more prominent, so hopefully people won't miss it now. Kirill Lokshin 18:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

enough

"Fayssal", I removed what you considered to be offensive when you blocked me. I have not been contributing to Wikipedia because now I know what you people are. I did not harm anyone, I did not hurt anyone. Why do you want to take it to this point? Why do you want to provoke me? How is the content of my userpage offensive? Is it because I pointed out to Israeli hostilities? People have userpages with "Hezbollah=Murder Incorporated" userboxes.

Should the content of my userpgae be removed, every other userpage with "I support the State of Israel" and "Hezbollah=Murder incorporated" userboxes must have these userboxes remover, if you want to be logical.

I left Wikipedia and I'm contributing very little because I know what you people are made of. Israel is a terrorist state in the eyes of half the world's population. Leave me alone, leave me unprovoked. I am quiet and peaceful but you people want to drag me all the way.Embargo 18:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Embargo. We are here to avoid problems. We are not creating problems. As you've seen through the links i left above, other people have already removed the stuff from their pages. We are made of flesh same as everybody but we have a policy that Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. We are not inventing the rules but we are applying them. Of course, no admin is against you because you support Hizbollah but as admin Kim explained above, it is about leaving armed conflicts and nationalistic views off of the wiki. One important thing that you may not have known yet is that some people would consider your edits as biased because they would think you are not a neutral editor and all that because you got an infobox of a paramilitary organization. So why not avoid all the headache. Isn't Assalamatou khairoun mina al 3ilaj? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I edit Hizbollah article so often and some would believe that i am a Hizbollah sympathizer. Maybe! But do i carry any infobox re to that? Do i have to tell people oh you are damn wrong, i am right. I support the truth, etc? You do not have to. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove redirect tag

Hello Fayssal. I think I've found a good practical approach to resolving the factual dispute over Brian Jones Presents Pipes Of Pan At Joujouka. Currently, there is a redirect tag on the page that has the original spelling of the album, which sends you to an article that is essentially about a reissue with a different name. There is more discussion on this at the talk page. But I would like people to start editing the original article about the original work. The only way we can do that is if the redirect is removed. Then, everything will flow logically from the historical document itself. Tuathal 11:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Questionable talkpage edit

Wondered whether you thought this edit that I just happened upon crossed the border into Islamophobia and/or racism? I'll trust you to exercise your judgement on what if anything should be done. Thanks. Itsmejudith 11:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversial userpage material

FayssalF, I acknowledge and support your efforts to remove controversial and factionalizing material from userspace per WP:USER and WP:NOT. This is one thing (possibly one of many things) upon which I wholeheartedly and unreservedly agree with you. Always feel free to let me know if there is there is something I can do to aid you in this endeavor.Proabivouac 12:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal, I thank you for deleting the userboxes. Logically, however, the counterpart of "I support (Hezbollah)" would be "I support Israel". I think what I say makes pretty much sense. N'est-ce pas? I do not know who deleted my userpage, or who gave him the right to delete it. I want to avoid problems, and surely double-standards. This is why until "I support Israel" userboxes are removed, I intend to keep mine. Just to be fair. I hope I made it clear. Embargo 15:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Morocco

Fayssal, I don't think "in a time when the kingdom of Morocco was still being splitted between multiple dynasties and kingdoms" sounds right: it's not possible to have something (the kingdom of Morocco) existing if is split "in multiple dynasties and kingdoms". I still think that "did not exist" is more accurate...if you think of something like "was in a period of formation" I would also object, since this took still a couple centuries....what do you think? Mountolive 21:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I edited in a way that should be satisfactory. Hope you agree! Mountolive 05:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

...in a time when the kingdom of Morocco did not encompass the Rif area. sounds correct though it encompased the Rif area some times in history before. The case is a bit more complicated than that in terms of the involvment of other parties as the Nasrid dynasty, the Kingdom of Fez and the conflict between the Moroccans and the Portuguese. Anyway, i'll say the above phrasing is accurate although a bit simplistic. In brief, i agree we keep it that way and not complicate it further as we already have other articles where the idea could be devolopped further. Happy editing. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

pleased to hear that you are ok with it. Thanks for forcing me to..you know...think for a change ;) Mountolive 07:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On February 2, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article J. C. Kumarappa, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks again Szvest for your contributions. This article kindly nominated by Rama's Arrow. Many thanks and feel free to self nominate in the future. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blnguyen and welkies. The article's become a pretty good one since i started it. Rama's done a good job as well. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Economist-Dec-2006.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Economist-Dec-2006.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 00:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Punic inscriptions

Hi Fayssal

could you perhaps help me a bit with research on Punic inscriptions? I think that someone fluent with a Semitic language and the Maghreb might have it easier. There exist several complete catalogues of Punic inscriptions (there are found more and more texts in recent times). Problem is that the translations seem rather complicated and are often hotly disputed. Many German and English sources do not use the Punic inscriptions for their research, denoting them commonly as formalistic religious blabla. However, they do definetly contain more information. Especially in the Maghreb (Tunisia) and France research is published on the topic (in French). Wandalstouring 14:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wandalstouring. I'll be happy to help you. Could you please guide me to the material in question? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

On this website is a newly discovered inscription mentioned at the bottom. I couldn't retrieve all its discussed interpretations(important). The above one from Massilia is neither mentioned in my sources, although I have some clue that there was a constant Punic presence with their own temples in this town(less important).

A really interesting piece seems to be catalogized as CIS I 5510.10 I have in Near Eastern Studies, January 1994 an article by Philip C. Schmitz: The Name 'Agrigentum' in a Punic Inscription (CIS I 5510.10). It is really intruguing because it seems to be about a military context and does mention the names and title of Punic commanders that are classified as strategoi by our Greek sources. Thus the official title for a Punic general would be 'rbm' (literally meaning: the great/the great one). I could scan and send you this article as soon as I have a scanner within reach (Monday). The problem is that Schmitz argues for an interpretation and I have not a clue what the current consensus is or whether there is any. Wandalstouring 16:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. I'll have to do a simple reaserch before presenting my 2¢. I'll get back to you soon. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I read it again. OK, 'rbm' is the indicator for a general, while the plenty 'hrb' seem to indicate magistrates. 'bn' means son of, just for orientation.

CIS I 5510,7-11

wţnt 'mtnt z bḥdš [p]'lt št 'šmn'ms bn 'dnb'l hrb wḥn' bn bd'štr[t] bn ḥn' hrb wylk rbm 'dnb'l bn grskn hrb wḥmlkt bn ḥn' hrb 'lš wtmk hmt 'yt 'grgnt wš[']t šlm

"and I installed this gift (at the time of) the new moon of P'lt (in) the year of Esmunaos son of Adonibal the magistrate and Hanno son of Bostar son of Hanno the magistrate and the general Adnibal son of Gisco the general and Himilco son of Hanno the magistrate and the general Adnibal son of Gisco the general and Himilco son of Hanno the general banished 'lš(name of a person); and they seized Agrigentum and pacified it."

'grgnt = "Agrigent" is hotly disputed, however I have found no recent contra since 1974 and 1983, while the last pro is from 1994. Now with more info on the dispute in Ameling Karthago: Staat, Militär und Gesellschaft page 86 Wandalstouring 00:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:ONDA.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC on article

I added a request for comment on how to do the Pipes of Pan article (and frankly, the related articles). It seemed like people were getting annoyed and for what I can tell RfC is how things are done but I don't know how to do them. Please let me know how RfC is done. I simply explained that on Pipes of Pan album there is a dispute about the album covers belonging in it and spellings. I do not understand RfC and I do not really think it will work to help but I will attempt it anyway. I tend to distrust things where people can possibly stack a vote to get their way if that is what RfC is. But I don't know how else to list the issues and it seems that is what is called for. My belief is that too much COI is involved and no parties but neutral admins should be allowed into these articles. I believe all the people involved thus far should be locked out of it because history changing is at issue and there's too much chance of COI and proxies, plus the other problem is that the "jajouka" group's side isn't likely to even find the talk page if their point of view is needed. And frank rynne's spelling and link edits seem to be going back into the article excluding smears thus far. This is really wearing and tiring. I don't like being forced to have to point out the obvious because no admin is providing oversight. Or else I just don't understand how articles are supposed to be done here. Emerman 15:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Islamic Ethics

Hi FayssalF,

Just though you might be interested to see the source [5]. Cheers, --Aminz 04:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Libel action

Hi FayssalF, Thanks again for your recent mail regarding the Joujouka/Jajouka conflict spreading across many related articles, but now concentrated at Talk:Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Jajouka. I'm afraid matters have descended into complete chaos. I edited the Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Jajouka to what was a perfectly reasonable solution; a page that reflected the original album, which would either note or link to the reissue of the album. But is was completely erased, and more of the usual claims by Emerman and Co are now plastered all over it again. Not only that but Emerman edited my comments without signing and then complained when I removed them. But these are minor compared to other entries. Cherie Nutting made a statement on behalf of The Master Musicians of Jajouka that contained multiple allegations against Frank Rynne which I believe do not belong on Wikipedia, and should be removed immediately, as they are opening the door to possible ISP liability for libel. Now Emerman has accused me of fraud, which again has very serious implications. I have asked for a retraction and apology and stated that I am not continuing in the 'debate' until there is intervention by admin. I am also contacting AMA for an advocate in this matter. Please don't hesitate to ask if there is anything you need in performing your analysis of this conflict. However, I request an immediate contact from you regarding this matter, the next time you are online.Tuathal 23:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all I have not "alleged fraud". I had a sentence in the talk page that mentioned in passing that Wikipedia must avoid any sort of fraudulent info and it did not mention Tuathal. It is a fact that we must avoid such. He asked me to remove that sentence so I clarified it.

Second of all, Nutting's statement is not much different from the one she had up in the MMofJou article's archive talk page that still shows in public and he didn't allege ISP liability for libel on that one, nor did anyone do anything about Frank Rynne's edits in the 2006 to early Jan 2007 versions of [Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Joujouka] album article that attacked Nutting's band, nor did Tuathal complain about FR's comments in the Master Musicians of Joujouka article talk page archives where he'd linked to a PDF at Joe Ambrose's site pointing to a tirade about Bachir Attar. Nobody saw fit to stop any of that in 2006 or in Jan. 2007 and the addition of the current album cover by me in mid Jan 2007 while leaving the old one too had been a fair and NPOV handling of the 2006 problems. If he wants to allege libel, then he should have noticed the things that were previously up in past wikipedia articles written by Frank that she was responding to and we should also then remove old archive discussions by Frank and Nutting where he displays links to contentious PDFs and makes comments about homosexuality and any other "libel" that's up on any of the related talk pages if he's the judge of libel.

He is now reverting and so forth, ignoring a band complaint, without waiting for consensus. Admins wouldn't do things like that and you haven't either. Maybe you could provide more guidance since he indicated in the past he wants to learn about how to be a mediator in the future and you are an admin and know.

I do not apologize for something I did not do, and I did not allege fraud. I said Wikipedia must avoid fraudulent info and I did what he asked and removed the word "fraudulent" but I never "alleged fraud" to begin with. I do not apologize for something I did not do. I do apologize that he has created a furor on the talk page and I do wish you would have asked people to just stop talking since he is now alleging libel, writing legal threats, and escalating things further. I said a simple, true statement, that we have to avoid having fraudulent info up here at wikipedia. That was what I said and what I intended. And it's all I intended, nothing about him personally and I've done what he said about not even having the word up since he takes the word as being about him when it is not. I do think my tone could improve and I'll apologize for bad tone. Emerman 00:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, re: his claim I "erased" his alterations -- I had reverted, with explanation, to the state prior to his reinstating old spellings of a producer throughout the album article and removing the current album cover. Both album covers belong. The album does not need two articles at all. He reverted my work, so I have added the current album cover and spellings but have left in the text he added although he has not added footnotes. Would it be possible to de-escalate this? Lawyers don't need to make every situation where they disagree with someone a legal matter. "Wikilawyering" is the term. He had shown up originally the day after FR was posting messages about "moot court". Emerman 01:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with the Brian Jones photo. I only said to also include the current album cover and spellings currently recognized in the industry and the official village spelling rather than one used a couple of times 36 years ago, except in passing.

The current spelling is pretty clear and it's been that way for the village since before any of the albums as provable on maps and has been that way for the band since their second album was recorded in 1972. T seems to really be bent on this spelling issue when if one were an advocate of encyclopedic standards instead of trying to link the album to a band that now uses the spelling (starting 1995 on Sub Rosa) it wouldn't be that big a deal to him that the Rolling Stones reissued the thing with a different cover via Point. I don't wish a problem with T. Can't this be resolved in a less contentious way? I'm depressed about this. Isn't there an admin in charge of spelling standards? Emerman 02:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: Tuathal and I reached consensus to split the articles. I have no issues with him at this time re: the past comments. [Refactored my comment due to email received Emerman 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)]

1. It's just a word. Relax. Listen to some music. Turn off your computer for a while. Relax.
2. If any of you makes legal threats you will be banned.
3. No, there's no admin in charge of spelling standards. Admins are just regular users, in most cases. You have to solve things like this amongst yourselves. If someone is breaking the rules, like revert warring or being uncivil or making legal threats, then you can report them to an admin for that behavior, so that the admin can block them. Content disputes are decided by consensus among the people involved, though. The only thing we can do that regular users can't is force out people who aren't participating in a cooperative atmosphere. We aren't going to unilaterally make changes to the article content. I can barely even follow what this dispute is about. Do you really want me enforcing a change that you don't agree with because I don't know all the background? — Omegatron 15:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, we've already decided to split the articles via the talk page discussion. Also, I got sent a legal threat (not by Tuathal) and am going to just go and delete all my comments because I don't know what the party is referring to and he charges "libel". I don't have the interest in dealing with court. And wikipedia says that all "libel" has to be removed from talk pages. I do not have time to sort out what this person said in email is libel so I want my comments removed. I'm not that married to them to keep them up. I will send you an email on this. Emerman 15:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Verifying the references

Salam Alaykum

Could you please help us in Talk:Hezbollah#Verifying the references ?--Sa.vakilian 03:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Chippenham

Thanks for the quick revert to the Chippenham vandalism. I have placed a level 2 warning on the IP talk page. It is the only contributions from this IP on record so hopefully that will be enough. Thanks again. AlanD 15:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome. No problem. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks

for your help restubbing with {{Africa-newspaper-stub}}. I thought I was going insane and somehow repeating my edits until I realized that we stubbing nearly simultaneously. I proposed the stub thinking there were maybe 50 articles, but it looks like that was a significant underestimate. Cheers, BanyanTree 17:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Banyan Tree. Yeah, i was working on the Africa Peer Review stuff when i noticed you adding the newspaper template and decided to help you mate. Cheers. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your talk page and MMOJ pages

Dear Szvest, when you are next in here and have a block of time could you refactor anything left here by me that's contentious on this page and the archive page? I received an email requesting action and mentioning libel (not from tuathal), and I do not know what all comments I made that this person may have been referring to. I did not post any libels or anything I thought to be anything but true. Nonetheless, to solve the problem could you scan for anything someone might might try to call libelous or accusational and remove it or refactor it eventually to neutral tones if you see any problem I missed? I have finished going over the page and neutralizing my tone here and in pages related to MMOJ after receipt of the worrying email.

Tuathal and I came to a resolution about splitting the articles. I haven't had time to do anything about sandbox stuff for them because I'm just dealing with calming nerves about tone of talk page comments and only dealing with my own comments other than one comment Tuathal mentioned by Nutting I also addressed since he requested action and there are rules about acting re: claims of defamation that we have to address when they're made. I am sure she wouldn't want to leave up hassles and she'll likely never find how to get back to the right page. I'll drop her a note about it to make sure she agrees.

I've completed my work dealing with the email by refactoring things for concerns of future threats in email. It's not worth leaving anything up by me that would upset anyone. The only value to talk pages is to get articles improved not upset anyone with my comments. Also, I believe that I will move out of editing anything. If I have any energy left I could help Tuathal with the Pipes of Pan splitting and that will be it. Emerman 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I have reviewed again that album talk page re: BJ Presents and it seems very contentious. Although I tried to edit most things down for tone, I had left things defending myself from things left up by T on the page about me that I'd have rather removed. I would be happier if the entire thing were eventually turned into simply a page with none of that contentious personal discussion left in and simply having a statement of what the album article concerns were and what the resolution was (to split the articles and keep them neutral).

The rest is too contentious given things people have bandied about re: legal terms today in your talk page and email. If the other comments were gone then more of my comments defending myself would be totally irrelevant and removable too. The talk page isn't supposed to be about him and me or FR or anyone else, just the article anyway. I have not touched his comments; that's for him or you to do. For fairness it is appropriate not just for me to edit myself for sensitivity since I was requested to act, but for others on the page BJ Presents to have their stuff not be so accusational either. I otherwise could have already removed my comments explaining and defending myself which are not pleasant to read and neither parties' personal comments help one decide what to do about the article, which is all the talk page is for.Emerman 01:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Jboyler

I have blanked this page due to its inflammatory content.Proabivouac 04:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That was funny. A user keen to provoke admins instead of editing the encyclopaedia. I see he got a 7 days wikibreak enforced by an admin. Well done Pro. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. May I also ask after your opinion of my recent edits to Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi?Proabivouac 10:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine edits. I tried to fix some more stuff. The article really needs citations. Cheers. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this? It's sourced, but its inclusion in Allah strikes me as too marginal (and ridiculous) to merit inclusion.[6]Proabivouac 09:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I heard about it many times before. It can be classified as trivia. It is a clear false analogy. The refs used are whether opinions (i.e. Hip-hop's grim undertones) ore garbage (i.e. Akee Wise and Essence T-Shirts!!! (NEW!!!)) i just find it silly myself as well. Cheers. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am being blatantly insulted here by Garzo and Chaldean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Garzo#That_was_not_a_silly_edit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sargonious (talk • contribs)

The block by Gareth is totally right. I am checking the facts w/ Chaldean now. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not the block I'm referring to but rather their behavior and condesending tone.The Tsar is Gone but I am King 14:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Really, I just don't see any Gareth's bad behaviour Sang. You were blocked for a sillyness. You are not a newbie and edits like those just can't be done by established users like you, especially that it is not the first time. I just hope you be careful and avoid controversies. Do you have any idea about the webpage linked by Chaldean? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's an insult site where you can add people's names in the URL to be insulted. I'm sure he made it.12.15.7.70 15:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Ok, i'll wait for his answer before taking action. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi Chaldean. Could you please tell me from where you got this? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand what is being asked of me. Chaldean 16:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You got a link above and i am asking if you are responsible of setting up that attack webpage. You have provided that link to harrass another user. So, my question is, for what reason have you used it? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sargon has shown on wiki that he likes to play game instead of contructing good work. So I played his game. It was nothing personal, just a joke - just like most of Sargon's edit (hint the joke.) This isn't the first time, and he has repeated this time over and over again with different pages. I tried to be nice to him (see his talk page), but he still insists of vandelizing. Chaldean 19:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Faisal, Sargon is continuing his childish acts on Garzo's talk page. Chaldean 02:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/February 11

Salam.

I want to add anniversary of victory of Islamic revolution(Or Iranian revolution) in this page:[7]

As you see there is written:"Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini seized power in Iran, and eventually became the Supreme Leader of the Islamic republic." But there should be a link to Islamic revolution(Or Iranian revolution) because Islamic republic established on April 1 of that year.

But this page is fully protected and just admins can do so. --Sa.vakilian 06:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Spencer

Hi FayssalF,

Please have a look at the following link [8].

It is written by Professor Carl Ernst, William R. Kenan, Jr., Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

Cheers, --Aminz 23:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar

FayssalF, I'd like to solicit your involvement in an article which has shown many of the usual signs of dysfunction, Battle of Khaybar. I would like to see something which includes impeccably sourced information which doesn't sound at any point like it is either justifying or condemning Muhammad's behavior. It's a touchy subject, and a pair of cool hands are needed, lest it be protected like other articles in this space. I object to the way that Bless sins has been editing, to some of the sources he is using, and the way Aminz has been tagging, but I also see why they think some balance is necessary. However, I strongly disagree that lengthy justifications are the way to do it. I've tried to bring a little by attributing controversial claims and including Watt, but there's by now so much disputed material, it might take awhile to get through it (ah, version wars...) You might have another perspective to bring to bear. Please do weigh in, should you find the time and inclination to do so.Proabivouac 06:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"the way Aminz has been tagging"+ " but I also see why they think some balance is necessary" --> contradiction. In Proabivouac's logic: If an article is not neutral, don't add any tag to it because I object to it even though I know it is not neutral. I have no trust in a sentence of it. Every sentence of this article must be verified. --Aminz 07:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Then why don't you try to verify it? That would be a helpful activity.Proabivouac 03:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a simple question: What can be the motivations for opposing putting up a disputed tag when there is active dispute on the talk page? I can only think of one thing: "We want to make our readers think that the article is neutral". Now why? To me the answer is clear... --Aminz 08:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, your edits to mainspace and statements to talk pages make it clear that your assessment of neutrality is unreliable. That doesn't mean you don't sometimes have good points, but the idea that everything must be tagged until you Aminz agree otherwise (even when there's not been any active discussion for many months) is wrong, and suggests (correctly or not) your goal to be to permanently mar generally factual and reasonable articles with this tag. Unlike Battle of Khaybar, your and Bless sins objections to Banu Qurayza don't strike me as remotely justified; honestly, it seems your real issue is with the events themselves which you cannot reconcile with your image of a sacred past (hint: there was no sacred past, all was as messy at it seems today.)

I don't understand how it is that you distrust "every sentence" of these articles, yet have full confidence in Bless sins' material (worthy of a barnstar awarded just today) cited to Mubarakpuri (read the last chapter of that book, then get back to me. Summary: Shi'a is a big lie) and Maududi ("...the anti Islamic Jewish mind prevailed over every moral consideration and the Bani Quraizah were persuaded to break the treaty.")Proabivouac 08:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"the idea that everything must be tagged until you Aminz agree" Believe me or not, I wanted to write the same thing for you. In your comment above everyone was guilty except you. I am not paid by wikipedia to work on articles. And what are the tags for? Are they for editors or for the readers? Not being an active dispute really means that for a long time wikipedia editors think the article is neutral which is quite false in case of Battle of Khaybar and Banu Qurayza. These are all playing with words and justifications to remove POV tags. And your last point assumes that you are right and others are wrong("it seems your real issue is with the events themselves"). This also clear in the way you phrased the first sentence "your edits to mainspace and statements to talk pages make it clear that your assessment of neutrality is unreliable".

And I don't have any real issue with these. Prophet Muhammad is a hero of mine. You can disagree with me; you can develop theories of why I object to the neutrality of these article, but it would be best if you keep them to yourself. Thank you.

I have distrust in every sentence of that article because it was written by Pecher. I am not going to continue my comment as I am afraid I may insult someone. --Aminz 09:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe that it was right for the men of the Banu Qurayza to be beheaded, their wives and children enslaved and their properties divvied up among the Muslims? If so, can we at least agree that this rather tendentious value judgment does not belong in mainspace? Neutrality is to merely state that this occured, without condemning it or justifying it. Do the bare facts condemn on their own? That's the real problem here. A straightforward and factual telling, without extra condemnations or apologies won't be seen as neutral by editors who want to believe that perfect people ran around doing perfectly perfect things. I agree that one can arrive at an interpretation whereby this is all justified, but only by repudiating contemporary standards of human rights, which anyhow like religion are merely normative, thus impossible to prove or disprove objectively. That element of neutrality, however, is still, and must be present. We ought never to prejudice readers' decisions. But that doesn't mean we have to take note of readers' prejudices (e.g. re contemporary human rights paradigms) and actively argue against them.Proabivouac 09:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we discussed this before. "Neutrality is to merely state that this occured, without condemning it or justifying it" is true when we are writing of something happening today but false of something happened 1400 years ago. And this is the practice of the most renowned scholars of Islam in the widely read scholarly works. Providing context might appear apologetic to you but it is necessary to me. BTW, you can similarly argue that one can only justify occurance of earthquakes and disasters in a world created by a loving God through repudiating contemporary standards of human rights. --Aminz 09:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Off topic though this is, no, I don't agree with you about God's love. The proof and act of God's love is many magnitudes greater than helping or hurting us; it is that he suffers us to be. That's all. You, Aminz, exist because God loves you and wanted you to be. Much more than passive "accepting" love of what you are, He loved the mere idea of you enough to create you. It's a gift no one else can or will ever give you. Of course that is only my belief.

Back to Wikipedia...Why should we not, every time there is a controversial event, list all the people who didn't engage in the disputed behavior? To provide the necessary "context," naturally. Most people don't behead others, actually; for all its problems, this was true even in the seventh century. Why not point out on Martin Luther and the Jews how and where his anti-semitic screeds might find parallels in Muhammad's? Alternately, why not head over to Israeli-Palestinian related articles and point out how human rights abuses of the IDF might be compared (or contrasted) to Muhammad's treatment of Jews fourteen centuries earlier? Isn't that exactly what you're doing when you bring up Deuteronomy?Proabivouac 10:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not off-topic. God created us in his own image and we are just report what God have done. Please take a look at this [9]. That's someone seriously disagreeing with you. The point is that God has a claim over our life because he has created us. If you are pointing out to the grace of God, I can point out to Muhammad's lots of good things and reforms. It is true that Muhammad engaged in war and Jesus didn't. You say he was sometimes aggressive but by Muhammad by doing this, at least taught his followers the ethics of warfare, something which Christians had to wait for centuries to learn. Muslims never fiercely slaughtered others as Christian crusaders did. Pope Urban II was very well-versed in Bible when he declared that "Christ commands it to to exterminate the pagan, to free the Holy Land and to aid the Christian inhabitants". Had Muhammad not engaged in war, Muslims would probably had such bad records in their history. --Aminz 10:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the context. Watt says:"His[Muhammad's] contemporaries did not find him morally defective in any way." Period. (will complete my comment later; I am going to sleep now.)--Aminz 10:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't the Quraysh and the Jews of Medina count as his contemporaries? Or do you hold that they were so wicked as to attack him because he was good? It's a very strange narrative indeed wherein everybody loves and reveres Muhammad, yet are constantly scheming to kill or otherwise thwart him.Proabivouac 03:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I haven't explained it well. Of course Quraysh didn't like Muhammad and that's not the point.

Taking war as an example: it has its own ethics. For example today killing citizens is against the ethics of war, but killing soldiers is not. It is not the issue of loving or hating. Living in a tribal system, Arabs had a particular ethics and worldview giving more weight to particular things, probably to the ties and pacts. Many scholars argue that for example Islam's harsh punishments for some sins(hudud) was not barbaric in the context of the time. In fact, they were quite appropriate. Today, they seem barbaric. I hope that clears things up. --Aminz 08:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, my point was that natural disasters, earthquakes, cruelty in natural world(letting aside human world) are not easier to explain that Muhammad or "the curse of destruction" in Hebrew Bible.

But for Abrahamic religions, there is the concept of "God's judgment" on a people (Itmam al-hujjah if I am not mistaken in Islam). That explains, or as some might want to put it "aims to justifies", these incidents. --Aminz 09:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a break. This is about some battle involving two religious groups and part of one group gets butchered after a siege. There is no need to toss around holy scriptures and see which one hits harder and whom God really loves. Wandalstouring 09:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Though I'm not a member of either group, I certainly agree with your general point. Leaving our identities at the door may sound harsh, but it's the only solution to these kinds of problems.Proabivouac 10:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've given my opinion at the article's talkpage. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)