User talk:Anonymous editor/Archive 3

I revised Sahaba

Hope you can take a quick look at it and perhaps help to defend this (hopefully, closer to NPOV) version against revert efforts that may materialize. BrandonYusufToropov 3 July 2005 09:45 (UTC)

Islam and slavery

In response to the protection of the page, Urchid created Islam and Slavery Uncensored, which I've deleted. Unbelievable. File:Meh.gif SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 3, 2005 16:45 (UTC)

Zeno rampant in Muhammad

I've done two reverts and I can't do any more. Zeno has replaced a section on sources with his version touting Ibn Ishaq as the only real source on Muhammad and claiming that it is deprecated by Muslims because ... and then he lists every single accusation against Muhammad that he can find in Ibn Ishaq. It's transparently POV. Zeno and Coolcat are reverting to keep it in place. When you get back from the barbecue, or whatever you and family are doing ... Zora 4 July 2005 08:06 (UTC)

I know you're busy with Muhammad, but ...

Could you please take a look at the ongoing dispute at Sahaba? Many thanks.

Edip

Edip Yuksel has been restored and immediately VfDed, which I think is idiotic, but is their right. I've begun cleanup and NPOV. Take a look at the Talk page for one particularly egregious paragraph that I'm unsure about. --MikeJ9919 5 July 2005 15:33 (UTC)

have a gander?

Wondering if you can have a gander over at two revert wars Jayjg and I are involved in. Al Andalus (Muslim Spain) and The Sword of the Prophet. You can check the talk pages to see his rationale for the constant reverting, because I don't understand why he's doing it, but, help is appreciated! regards - --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:34, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Can you please ...

... take a look at my work here, and perhaps add it to your watchlist? Many thanks, BrandonYusufToropov 13:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update. User:Carbonite instantly reverted. BrandonYusufToropov 13:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Making RfC for Germen

I'm putting together an RfC for Germen's behaviour on the Islamophobia article and associated pages. Since you have been involved in disputes with this user before I was hoping you might be able to contribute to the draft before I publish it on WP:RFC. Axon 12:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad

Can you please take a look at the editor's poll I posted at the Jihad talk page here? BrandonYusufToropov 14:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV's

I noticed that you are against people throwing their extreme POV's in other's faces. Well, I've noticed that you're not exactly following that yourself. For example, in the Islam talk page, you were throwing all these alledged "hate crimes" that Christians supposedly committed at other users. Now, don't get me wrong. I'M not going to go bashing other's religions. I'm a Christian, and we're not supposed to go committing hate crimes. But it'd be nice if you'd follow your own policy for once. Scorpionman 20:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but pointing out fact is different from 'hate crime'. Perhaps you should read the entire argument before you think I am contradicting my policies. --Anonymous editor 19:14, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism in Kashmir

This is to bring to your notice that the NPOV tag on the article has been removed. Are you on a vocation?? The last edit you made was on 3rd July!! --IncMan 22:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yup I'm on vacation, I'll be back soon and once in a while post messages. Thanks for your notice and talk to you later. --Anonymous editor 19:15, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Your request

Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:44, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Islam poll

[1] I thought you might be interested in this.Farhansher 21:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Great to see you back. --Ragib 20:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back!

And still in one piece, alhamdulillah.

Anything interesting going on? BrandonYusufToropov 17:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey hey hey, assalamo alikum, wellcome back guys....lots of work..lots of attacks..& lots & lots of fun. U guys will definitely enjoy it . I wish I had time to have a sip of it with U guys . Peace Farhansher 19:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please review

Can you check This out and tell me what you think. I did it all my self, but still don't like it. It's ugly and does not seem to read well. Brandon and striver have helped out a fair bit, but the more help the better it will become, inshAllah. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:02, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Please vote above this line

Anonymous editor,
I do see that you're trying to do on this messy AfD, and understand your reasoning. However

There isn't meant to be a division between "comments" and "votes". See recent changes VfD -> AfD.
It's probably trying to hold back the tide anyway.

But if you want to keep doing it, have fun! ^_^
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahamic religion

Regarding the section Abrahamic religion#Evangelism: you posted that "Islam does not permit forcing someone" to convert. This prohibition is not consistently followed - there has often been a disconnect between practiced Islam and ideal Islam. Could you clarify in the section how forced conversion is forbidden, such as a verse from the Quran? DDerby (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mussulman

According to my searches online, I must say that the word Musselman has no religious connotation with Islam when Nazis used it to describe Jews prisioners. I also found many places, notable people and including a Geometrical theorem. Therefore, I just listed all usaged of the word in that section to avoid controversy. However, the article looks now as deviation form the main subject. So, one of the two, weather we accept that or remove all at once as the Mussulman word has no religious connotation. Cheers -- Svest 19:58, September 12, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Evidence which relates to Guy Montag

Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence Fred Bauder 21:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is this case in which Yuber made his complaint regarding Guy Montag. Fred Bauder 21:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your request

Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

... for the reformat on my user page. Looks great! BrandonYusufToropov 10:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... For teaching me about getting started on Wikipedia. I am a fast learner, just overwhelmed with the amount of material here and the structure - I will get a handle and make myself uesful soon, InshaAllah. I love the wiki technology, and I want to use it to develop open interactive forums for various topical communities in Pakistan, where I live. I have noted your contributions on the topics I am most interested in at the moment (religious/ Islamic to be spec.). Very worthwhile. Jazak-Allah. We'll keep talking.

Salaam: TheProphetess 12:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism

Hi, I'm examining this debate with a view to closing it. I notice that you removed a vote from the debate, on the grounds that it was "unsigned". YOU MUST NOT DO THIS. I recognise that you did this with the best of intentions, but it is not permitted. I routinely step through every single edit on a deletion debate, and by the end of it I know more about each editor than (almost) their own mother. I decide whose vote counts and whose does not (in this case the vote was not counted, but not because it was unsigned). --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 21:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Thank you for keeping my talk page clean, AE. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

82.134.103.100 (talk • contribs)

I've blocked him for 24 hours. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anon vandal

And what do we do when they decide they do not like other content? I see no reason to give in to this one person just because he might be offended by a *gasp* woman looking at a Quran. Perhaps we should petition to have the page protected for a few days till this blows over? Jwissick 04:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this is most definitely a dynamic IP. The vandal has already moved on from that IP, and gets a new one every time I block it. Perhaps we'll simply have to protect it. Dmcdevit·t 05:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Btw that WHOIS query wasn't entirely correct. What that means is that you have to go to the RIPE database and search there because the one you searched doesn't cover that IP range. For instance, if you went to RIPE by the link provided, you would find out it comes from France and other info. It's been more than 15 minutes, so I think the vandal may have tired of it. Carry on!Dmcdevit·t 05:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings ... looks like I had signed out for the night just before you left me the message about the anon vandal. Yes, Dmcdevit is right, it was a dynamic IP so the editor gets a new one with each sign-on or dial-up; blocking those people usually has limited value. Protecting the article, or waiting until the vandal gets bored, is usually the best approach, if reason fails -- and I'm a bit puzzled as to why the editor wasn't willing to talk about that picture and discuss it rationally, but there's no accounting for some people's unreasonableness ... oh well. I hope the protection solves the problem for the time being. Take care! Antandrus (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shafi3i

Anonym, Shafi3i seems to be a traditionalist Shafi'i, and linkspamming for an anti-Salafi site. He is linking the site to six articles:

He feels that all of these articles have a Salafi slant and that his site is necessary medicine. It would be MUCH BETTER if he actually rewrote the articles involved so that they present both the Salafi and the traditionalist view. Linkspamming to get your point across is a bad tactic, and lazy. I'm tired and cranky and perhaps I didn't approach him the best way. If you can convince him to rewrite rather than linkspam, please do. Zora 06:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was not link spamming. I am contributing and editing some posts in a NOPV way in the english section. Added few links here and there and she made it a "big plan to impose" as she told me. Within a month i have written in another wiki section more articles than some can produce in a year . I understood that Zora is a muslim. Saying lazy about another muslim is Gossip and backbiting. Why would I come to wikipedia try to do something and then get into all this mess with zora and others? I came here to enjoy and help. It seems i was wrong. I am out of here.

I did not link the site to those six articles. I was linking different pages of the site to the relevant articles. I would like you to help me convince her that distorting the truth is wrong.

n.b. If you are interested i have attended cornell (M.S) and MIT (PhD) add to it a degree in Islam (UsuL Al Fiqh) from Al Azhar university.

Thank you and GoodBye Shafi3i 07:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Hey, I'm not a Muslim, I'm a Buddhist. If you have a degree from Al Azhar you're just what we need! But we have to play by the rules that exist here. It takes a while to learn the rules. I'm not sure that I've learned them all myself. But I have been fighting various kinds of linkspamming for more than a year, and what you're doing doesn't seem all that different from the stuff I'm fighting. How about we work together to correct any Salafi bias in the articles? I don't want to see it reign unchecked any more than you do. Zora 07:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir

in Terrorism in Kashmir, I suggest that you replace your POV tag with a

The neutrality of this article is disputed because....
Please see discussion on the talk page .

tag. The reason why it's POV might5 be obvious when you know the facts, but most of us don't. Share your wisdom and add something in the talk page, too. Adding a POV tag without putting anything in the talk page (or using the much more useful POV-because tag) isn't very constructive. Jules LT 19:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition, Criticism, or Anti-

With the exception of Islam, most major religions have "Anti-". For example, Anti-Judaism, Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Protestantism, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Mormonism. The problem with the title "Opposition to Mormonism" is that it is tooo POV. Opposition to illegal drugs, opposition to racisim, ok. How POV can you get about the pros and cons of racism? LoL. The only diehard opponents to Mormonism are other Christians. The old title assumes that all people are opposed to the religion, or that few people question reasons for its opposition, which is just not true. Anyway, I would like for you to edit the Criticism of Islam article. The article is accessible via the Islam template. As it currently stands, the article makes little attempt at being non-POV. --JuanMuslim 04:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Months in Islam

I've made a new teemplate so as to make viewing the months easier to navigate. Also, I've an idea whereby we create a calendar for each of the months, linking the important dates, for example the first of Shawwal will be linked to Eid ul-Fitr.. and so on. I've only done Muharram thus far (And that is not finished yet) but I'd like your input and ideas for improving.. and opinion on the template on the right. Thanks. --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anittas

Thanks — but as Anittas is an hysterical adolescent, and Enviroknot is a well-known vandal, I'll not lose any sleep. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Khakhan

Blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for that! Entirely undeserved, but very much appreciated!--Irishpunktom\^talk 17:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

AE, e-mail for you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia

Please see my comment on your recent edits on Talk:Saudi Arabia. Thanks! -- Dave C.^{talk | Esperanza} 20:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2005/ Fred Bauder 19:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[[Talk:Caliph#{{Islam}} for each "caliph"]]

Could you look at this and give me your opinion -- it's about using {{Islam}} for each caliph from Ummayad to Ottoman. gren グレン 08:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR at Muhammad

You have to warn people first. I have now done so. If he reverts again, I'll block him (assuming I'm still on). Jayjg ^(talk) 23:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that 3RR applies equally to everyone except in the case of pure vandalism (which I don't think this is). Therefore, it might be a good idea to step away from this edit war for a day or two. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I only reverted twice and non-consecutively. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I now understand. The issue is already mentioned in the article, so it does not need to be repeated. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Final prophet of Islam"

I think that "prophet of Islam" is pushing the boundaries of POV (it assumes that there is a "thing" called Islam, which exists independently of the prophet or his/her community) and "final prophet" is definitely POV because it assumes as fact that there IS a thing called Islam and that Muhammad is the last, definitive prophet. That's pure Muslim dogma, and it's POV. Some people would say that they are Muslims AND that they think there have been later prophets. Yes, I know you'd consider them marginal kooks, but they exist.

If you want Wikipedia to combat bigotry re Islam, then you're going to have to accept that we don't have any credibility unless we are seen as scrupulously neutral. If you try to turn Islam-related articles into apologia, you're playing right into the hands of the bigots who see any neutral commentary as biased. They'll point to your edits and say, "See, there is a conspiracy to use Wikipedia to preach Islam". Let's not go there, OK? Zora 01:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hey there

AOA -- I was, alas, late in arriving, but I left you a message at Talk:Islam. Ma-salaam, BrandonYusufToropov 13:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Terrorism in Kashmir

Well, if was so eager to make the article concerned a featured one, I should have nominated it for a featured status by now.. You wanna say that Kashmiris r not Indians.. my parents are Kashmiri pandits and they r proud of their Indian passports. U r saying that Indian soldiers are ordered to kill Kashmiri civilians, now thats wat I call totally unbiased view... they r ordered to kill... but those killed by Indian troops are either terrorists, civilians helping these terrorists and civilians who unfortunately happen to pass across the line of fire. India is a democratic nation and no democratic govt will order its military to kill its own civilians for no freakin reason.. tell me what will the Indian govt. gain by killin its own civilians.. The only people who accuse New Delhi of carrying state terrorism are the separatists and Islamabad (for a very basic reason.. to create anti-India sentiment). And the hell yes, the number of Kashmiris killed by separatist are more than Indian troops. Which newspaper do u read man?? The very fact that 2 kashmiri politicians are cabinet ministers and kashmiri political parties provide internal support to the ruling INC shows the amount of say kashmiris have in new delhi's policies. No major kashmiri political parties oppose new delhi's rule over kashmir, instead they whole heartedly support India and its policies. PDP is one Congress's strongest allies. For yr kind information, i support US's occupation of Iraq. the very fact that so many Iraqis came out and voted during the elections shows the amount of favorable viewpoint Iraqis have towards the US. Just because a few (but aggressive) of the Iraqis oppose the US doesn't mean that American occupation of Iraq is not favored among the Iraqis. U r insulting Kashmiris because if the indian army was doing anything wrong, Kashmir's goverment had every right and power to take an action against them. The fact that they haven't.... Cheers --{{IncMan|talk}} 04:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you give me a source which says that separatists killed more civilians than the Indian army? You and I both know that is not true. Almost anyone who knows history will tell you that. It is also known that in the early stages of the occupation of currently Indian-claimed Kashmir, Kashmiris were blindfolded and shot in rows in their villages by the Indian army. These were not individual troops doing this, these were troops under orders to do it. I realize that it is a shame that this happened, but please accept the facts first. There are very few separatists as opposed to army troops, using separatism as an excuse is not going to help anything, it will only whitewash. The article pretty much blames the separatists for everything. Support of US occupation has planted a government that goes with anything the US wishes anything the US wants to do illegally. Accepting the occupation in Iraq shows that you see the same elements in the ccupation in Kashmir. This further shows that you know very little about all sides of the story and your view is one-sided. The kashmiri government in occupied regions will not take action, they are under Indian military rule. That's like saying that the Prime minister of Iraq comes out on to the streets, where thousands of US troops are patrolling, in order to condemn them! Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 09:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well that same episode regarding indian troops firing civilians.. from where did u hear that.. i bet it was either from a pakistani's mouth, or a paki newspaper or separatist website. No other country or intl. organisation accuses New Delhi of carrying out state-terrorism.. now that doesn't mean Indian troops dont carry human rights violation.. but the hell not under delhi's orders. Rape, murder, lootings, kidnappings happen in every part of the globe.. u cant blame the central govt for that.. Ok, u dont trust me and the Indian govt. but i guess u trust media agencies like BBC. For yr kind info. most of the article's content is from BBC's coverage of the Kashmir dispute. And I dont wanna waste time proving to a person like u that the number of people killed by the indian troops are less than those killed by the militants.. its like trying to prove that the world is round and not flat!! U wanna talk about facts.. go to kashmir and then argue with me.. sitting in USA and being brainwashed by yr pakistani friends doesnt help Mr. Anon --{{IncMan|talk}} 17:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your information, my friend who constantly talks about the atrocities committed in Kashmir, is an Indian historian that I live next door to. He has studied this conflict for a long time. I also have a Pakistani friend where I work, but he is not as obsessed with this issue, but he does know a lot about it. I just wanted to tell you this before you excuse my Pakistani friends of trying to "brainwash me". Hopefully we can still work to NPOV the article in the future. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure anon.. we can work to sought out differences.. but before we start doing so I suggest that you gather a more accurate and verifiable data regarding the issue.. I agree that a lot of civilians have died due to Indian firing but accusing new delhi of carrying out state-terrorism is weird or simply doesn't make any sense. You must have noticed that every information in the article is supported by a source (see the reference section). I hope that whatever future edits u make to the article are unbaised keeping in mind this is an encyclopedia and again backed by verifiable sources. I appreciate yr effort to make the article more neutral. Cheers --{{IncMan|talk}} 00:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zeno

I only count three reverts in 24 hrs on Criticism of Islam, did I miss one? If so, I will file a complaint, if not, let's drop it. Page seems to have settled down.BrandonYusufToropov

By the time I looked it was protected. It actually didn't seem to be as bad as I thought it would be. In any case we'll see what happens when it become unprotected. gren グレン 17:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

E-mail for you, AE. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello, I am glad you are a muslim, as I am too. Salaam. But what I don't understand is, is that you used to be christian, I didn't expect any christians to become muslims after the September 11 attacks. - Sultn

Thank you for your message. Actually it is quite opposite to what you said. According to certain sources, converts to Islam have increased after the 9/11 attacks. That is because many people learn that Islam is not what most of the U.S media makes it out to be. Anyways, I hope to work with you in the future. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 13:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in Brazil

I will edit the article to be like it used to, but without the unlikely opart (even though it is indeed unlikely that there are 1 million or even half of it, of Muslims in Brazil. I live in Brazil and believe me, there aren`t many Muslims. Muslims are extremely rare here because they prefer to emmigrate to richer coutries. And Islam usually fails to convert people here 9in fact the other way around is slightly more common). PMLF 02:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC) And remove this controversy from the Islam in the World site because there are acontroversies everywheren ot only in Brazil (although the controversy in Brazil only exists in Muslim sites and not in geenral media not in the census which is very reliable). PMLF 02:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PLMF, although you might think that is the case in Brazil, but wikipedia must give all sides of the story. If there are sources that give such estimates then they must be voiced. It is very unfair and against wikipedia policy to edit in such a way that is personal point of view. Therefore do not revert the edits, but read wikipedia policy on sources and NPOV. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The way you put there is POV too. Several sources agree on 1 million as a nice, round figure and state that the official census contains discrepancies and error"" Which sources are these? How reliable are they (especially compared to the official census)? It just look like propaganda to artifically inflate the amount of Muslims in Brazil... Also, it`s already stated that Muslim authorities believe there are 1,5 Million Muslims in Brazil. The lines you added just favors the Islamic (wrong estimatives, although it`s not the point here) estimatives. PMLF 02:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add ANY lines; I simply reverted your version to the one before. Please go ahead and delete the line about a "nice, round figure", but do not add anything such as "it seems highly unlikely" because that will be POV. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Verify my user talk again. PMLF 02:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good. From now on let's continue the discussion on the relevant page. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues with edits.

I welcome your new found interest in Islam, but please know that Wikipedia is not a forum for discourse or furthering such ideas. Before jumping to accuse me of Islamophobia etc. kindly understand that religion is not the issue, though your pattern of edits seems to suggest so. The reasons why I feel some of your edits are not really up to the mark (though you might think otherwise) is that you are deleting whole lines which are referenced properly. eg. The pervez musharraf article where i added the siachen skirmish and on his involvement in kargil. Apparantly after 2 reverts it stayed since the sources proved so. I thought it might have been a slight oversight on your part in not reading the references and didn't make much of it. But in Kargil War too the same issue arose wherein you didn't read a single reference that was there and as a result I had to quote almost every other line culled mostly from the very sources for you to read. Not to forget that few supported your view it was POV just because India fared well in the war and so deserved to be told factually. hen I find you either stalking me or responding only to my statements and pointing out my so called personal attacks, but find that you conveniently chose to ignore all the nonsense trashed by the anonymous editor - not you :) in the talk page of Terrorism in Kashmir. This, even after i'd made truce to everyone if i'd made any comments that was not proper, intentional or otherwise. Clearly it shows that you do wish to ignore genuine personal attacks and instead chose to point out minor mistakes made by me. Coming to Terrorism in Pakistan, your real knowledge on these subjects stood exposed when you removed the statement made by a known terrorist by claiming that rediff.com was a blog site or some forum. I don't know what else to say except that you probably haven't even heard or even opened the starting page of the site to understand who or what rediff.com is. The news was sydincated from the Press Trust of India as you can read. Either you might have a slight tilt or don't wish to accept facts and deal with it or you dont' even read the given sources properly. I feel that unless you can take the time to know the background of the source and the contents of the source itself, you should refrain from making erroneous edits that lead to substandard articles. Hope that helps to ease any editing issues. Tx. Idleguy 06:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No one is stalking you, that is a ridiculous accusation. I just meet you on articles I have worked on before. It seems more like you are stalking me because I am usually at the articles first and you seem to enjoy my "pattern of edits". Like I said before, Islam has nothing to do with my edits on Pak-Indian issues. Why do you constantly refer to Islam? Does it make you think you can undermine my edits? Now that I look at your edits, they show a greater bias then mince since I mostly remove vandalism from articles, make minor fixes or apply wikipedia POV/image/source policy. Frankly, I think your edits are mostly nothing but POV pushing without the slightest regard that maybe Pakistani view should be represented on a Pakistan-related article. I can not represent their view, but I can make the article less POV. You did NOT source correctly on the Kargil article and I apologize if you thought it was a personal attack against you, even though it was obviously not. About the talk page of terrorism in Kashmir I said that you should ALL stop making personal attacks. The reason I warned you to stop using religion is because the anon user never referred to the MUSLIMS, he referred to Kashmiris. Starting to embark on a flame war is not in wikipedia's best interests. Also I was about to make a response to the anon user and gupta, before you finished editing. But seeing that you already started to make a rebuttal towards him, I stopped short and told all sides to refrain from it. If you took it offensively then you misinterpreted it.

Rediff.com is not a reliable source and you know it. Your source was 3 lines written by a nobody on rediff.com! Maybe I should cite the same type of thing on Terrorism in India? Just because I am Muslim does not mean I dislike other faiths, but the sad reality is that on Indian and Pakistani articles only Indian sides of the story are being shown and it is becoming evident that this is partially due to your edits. Therefore I can only suggest when you get sources, make sure they aren't just Indian nationalist sites and cite them properly. Hope that helps to ease any editing issues and allows you to edit wikipedia productively. Thanks. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irishpunktom 3RR violation

Perhaps they are ganging up on him, and though I try not to take sides, I do agree that Karl Meier may be gaming the system with his continual 3RR complaints against other users. But the problem is, as long as Irishpunktom continues to violate 3RR, he will be blocked continually. If Irishpunktom stops at 3 reverts, he won't be blocked- that's the simple truth of it. Ral 315 W_S 20:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:StephenCox

Hi, did you give a barnstar to this user? This morning he popped one on his page, purporting to be from you, in recognition of his "countless hours of work on SouthAsia-related articles." Trouble is, his current account has no edit history going back more than six days. I checked your history on user pages and couldn't find any instances where you awarded anyone else a barnstar for that reason. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 21:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism

I saw your edit summary: "Kidnappings and murders of one person is not terrorism, also please source your information on this organization". How is that not terrorism? Wasn't Daniel Pearl a victim of terrorism? freestylefrappe 21:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can not call murder "terrorism" can we? That way whenever someone is murdered every second, will that be called "terrorism"? Usually terrorism refers to massive attacks on large populations in order to acheive a large political goal. A kidnap murder of a journalist doesn't really do much. Well, I guess it could be some sort of minor terrorism, but there is no widespread terrorizing. I don't know whether it should be readded.

I think it is fair that you started that article, but please watch out because it will become biased really fast; that is the case on most articles dealing with South-Asian issues. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deepack has left you a message on my talk page. freestylefrappe 22:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the murder of Daniel Pearl didnt have any major political impact!! Give me a break. Islamabad came under immense pressure from USA during the entire unfortunate episode. Terrorism is an act which creates terror among the people and that particular episode was no exception. Pearl's murder was not just any other murder. So many people from countries supporting the US-led coalition are kidnapped in Iraq and then murdered. Isnt that terrorism. Why is this one an exception. Sometimes yr comments make me wonder whether u r from US or Pakistan! --{{IncMan|talk}} 22:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism is an act which creates terror among the people. Yes, which people were exactly terrorized? Like I said it is one of those things which does have political influence but still does not have widespread terrorizing. I don't see how Daniel Pearl's murder was any different from shootings by people here in the US. Thousands of people are kidnapped and plenty are murdered on the streets by drug gangs, by racial problems, etc. Very little is different. For all we know Dan Pearl could have been murdered just because of his race. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I should be posting this message on yr talkpage. Hope freestylefrappe doesnt mind! Daniel Pearl was not killed because he was white, he was murdered because he was an american! You shld be knowing this! Those who killed him were no ordinary murderers or paid killers. By killing him, Pakisatn-based terrorist had given a clear indication to US, stay out of Afghanistan or more innocent civilians die. Where were you when this entire episode happened. --{{IncMan|talk}} 22:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly deepak. But how many people were terrorized? It may have had a political goals but you said Terrorism is an act which creates terror among the people. A single person killed is not a lot of people. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People were terrorised. After the incident there was a sharp decline in the number of tourists travelling to Pakistan. The way a Wall Street Journal reporter was brutually tortured and murdered terrorised me atleast! --{{IncMan|talk}} 23:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak, that is getting way out of hand. Nice try though. :) Were not talking emotions here. I didn't say there wasn't an impact. I said there wasn't widespread terrorism. People cry when people die, but does that mean that everytime a member of a gang (for example) is murdered it is terrorism? Any single person's death is not terrorism according to the definition you gave me. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A gang member? Daniel Pearl was a public figure and a member of the press. What definition for terrorism are you going by? freestylefrappe 10:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyle, it was an example that if one person is killed, be it Pearl or a gang member, whether it should be considered terrorism. I was just trying to show deepak that a single person's death is not considered terrorism according to the definition he gave me. I was going by deepak's definition: "Terrorism is an act which creates terror among the people". --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think was the reason behind those pro al-Qaeda members killing Daniel Pearl? --{{IncMan|talk}} 00:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks AE. Same for you. I'll drop you an email. Cheers -- Svest 23:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ramadan Mubarak

Best to you and yours, brother. BrandonYusufToropov 01:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

¡Feliz Ramadán!

Assalaamu alaykum brother, May Allah SWT make this Ramadan a time for rememberance of those less fortunate. --JuanMuslim 02:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks..

.. for the Barnstar. Criticforaday 23:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Wa alikumus salam .Best wishes from my side too . Actually ramadan hasent started in Pakistan uptil now . Tomorrow will be the first fast . Farhansher 04:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ramadan Mubarrak

Best wishes for the month.--Irishpunktom\^talk 07:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User names

There's some information at Wikipedia:User_name#Inappropriate_usernames. I tend to block them only when they're clearly very offensive. If it's borderline, I leave them. As for symbols on user pages, I'd probably remove a swastika, but it would depend on the context. If it was a user making neo-Nazi edits, then I'd remove it, but if it was someone who just liked it as a general symbol, I'd probably leave it alone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JerusalemISIsrael is probably on the barely tolerable side of the line -- if that user continues with his POV edits, he'll have enough trouble without the name issue. Asserting a political position is one thing; advocating genocide is another -- and wearing a Nazi uniform (which is essentially what Großhauptsturmführer was doing) is, in this day and age, tantamount to promoting genocide. Us Jews are a bit touchy about that. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. :) a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of Islam

Yes, it's a repeat, to some extent. I probably should have just modified Islam by country but I had completely forgotten about it. The two articles should be merged, using my table rather than the Islam by country table, and also repeating the info re sources and caveats. As to the title of the merged title, I prefer "demographics" but if everyone else likes "Islam by country" better, I'd go with that. Zora 00:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

State terrorism

Anon, I appreciate yr efforts to remove POV from Wikipedia, but you at times ignore anti-Indian POV and it seems that u r more concerned about POV against muslims and Pakistan. Take the example of article on state terrorism. U were quick to remove anti-Paksitan POV but were least concerned about anti-Indian POV in India section. At times in effort to remove POV you end up expressing yr own point of view. Again, I really appreciate yr policy of making Wikipedia more encyclopedic, but rm one POV and adding another doesn't help. Cheers --{{IncMan|talk}} 23:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What was added to the Pakistan section was POV because it was linking various events to Pakistan most of which were unrelated to state terrorism. Your edits on the Indian section however are completely focused on so-called accusations by Pakistan. Why are you still denying this? Please don't think for an instant that slowly you can try to whitewash history and these articles. You said only Pakistan accuses. What happened at Amritsar? Thousands of sikhs were killed. What happened in Assam, thousands of christians were killed. What happened and is happening in Kashmir? I think you already know. Please don't try to rewrite history or try to cover massacres. I bet all these people killed by India have atleast some complaints. Also see the link I gave you on talk:terrorism in Kashmir. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just wondering, are you actually trying to make me lose interest in South Asia? Because recently I have been seeing a side of India which is giving a very negative impression. I suggest you drop the personal bias against me and we can edit as neutral editors. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, anon you hardly know anything of wats happenin in India and still u claim yrself as to be all knowledgable. Certain number of sikhs demanded for an independent nation, an India supressed their movement. There was a clash between hindus and sikhs following the episode which resulted in riot. Thats not state terrorism. So was the case in Assam. Indian army carries out operations to kill terrorists and not civilians anon. U dont know anything about Punjab and pl stop adding POV. Tellme one nation other than Pakistan which calls India a terrorist nation. u try to live in yr own beliefs and ignore truth. Yr hopeless anon --{{IncMan|talk}} 23:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surpression by killings is state terrorism. What is hard to believe? Maybe you regard all kashmiris who oppose India as terrorists, but that is certainly not the case. Why are you making up this nonsense? Is that how biased your media has become? What happened in Assam and to the Sikhs is exactly similar to what is happening in Kashmir. If you continue to revert despite the sources I am giving you, I will truly ask for arbitration in this case. It is absolutely ridiculous how you are rewriting history. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess in that case the entire world except Pakistan has become biased. Never before have I heard India being tagged as a state-terrorist nation. And yr media! Oh you mean Dutch media ha. And go ahead, ask for arbitaration, we'll then decide whose acting stupid here --{{IncMan|talk}} 23:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Answer one question: if west Pakistani army surpressed east Pakistani's during the Bangladesh liberation war then is that state terrorism? Btw, I am not asking for arbitration yet because I am assuming good faith and giving you a chance to realize what you are saying. Please answer question.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that was state-terrorism because West pakistani army killed civilians while they were performing peaceful demonstrations under govt orders. The seperatists in Punjab, Kashmir and NE are well known for targetting the Indian Army. Killing yr enemy before enemy kills you is justified act. Again this is further strengthened by the fact that neither amnesty, nor hrw nor any nation except Pakistan have tagged India as a terrorist state. --{{IncMan|talk}} 23:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Do you realize what you are saying? Indian army (under govt orders) marches into Amritsar and kills thousands of Sikhs, is that not the same? "Killing yr enemy before enemy kills you is justified act" - you must be one of the most biased editors I have met. So thousands of Indians were murdered under the orders of their own government and that is not state terrorism??? No one is saying TERRORIST STATE, please don't change the subject. State terrorism and TERRORIST states are two very different things. Your POV is clear when you consider Pakistan to have practiced state terrorism, but when India does the same, you deny it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I am not studying sociology. Im studying chemical engineering! All I know is that agencies which specialise in these fields, including human rights groups, intl. media agencies and govt ministries, have never accused India of carrying out state-terrorism. However, this doesn't mean that Im a big fan of the Indian govt mainly because of the fact it has always been runned by the Indian National Congress. Yeah INC was guilty of what happened in Punjab but u cant blame the entire nation for that! One bad fish makes the entire pool dirty but arent u being unfair --{{IncMan|talk}} 23:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for covertly admitting your error and I am glad you realize this. The Pakistani liberation war was the same. Done because of orders by the government in power, just like you say the INC caused the massacres in India. The government in power makes the entire country responsible in both cases. Hopefully now we can start anew and work together to make articles better? Let's leave state terrorism as it is then, okay? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you are not comfortable with sociological stuff, unlike me (a politics teacher), then please debate first and make changes later. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yr welcome. But Im still not very pleased w/ the section concerned. 1st because it gives a wrong image of India and 2ndly its inaccurate. apart from certain human rights groups, none of them have alleged India for carrying state-terrorism. If you can prove it, then thats a diff case. and Im sorry for my outburst --{{IncMan|talk}} 00:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Come on man. You know the section is fine as it is. Ofcourse, it will give a slight negative image of India (just like every other country on that page), I don't doubt that, but the material is certainly accurate and human rights groups and victim groups are sufficient for state-terrorism as that is what the section says. When a country performs certain actions, it is responsible for the blame. So let's leave it as is for the sake of argument. Hopefully you will also be more neutral on articles with idleguy involved as he has yet to realize this. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yr older than me and I will take yr advise seriously. cheers --{{IncMan|talk}} 00:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nations should be held responsible for wat they do. And India is no exception. Actually the Indian govt has commited many atrocities in the past. INC managed to remain in power because of the sympathy it gained after the death of Indira Gandhi. But BJP learned its lesson in a bitter manner by losing the 2005 elections primarily because of the gujarat riots. Frankly, I hate Indian politicians, just concerned about power, a disgrace to India. And Ill try being nuetral. Ok, do u mind the sentence many human rights being changed to some human rights? --{{IncMan|talk}} 00:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about just Human rights organizations instead of "some" or "many"? Doesn't really make difference with some or many. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NO it makes a diff. Make it some --{{IncMan|talk}} 00:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well what does "some" mean and what does "many" mean? Tell you what, I will change for both India and Pakistan and you can take a look. Tell me if you don't like it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with recent edits uve made to state terrorism article. Cheers --{{IncMan|talk}} 03:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

I did not replace I changed it into paragraph form per request of peer review. I'm trying to get the article to FAC and so i'm acting on the only suggestions I have. And you should notice all the information was there in the Islam section this last time, for now I will revert. Newbie222 13:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One other note on the list. In Islam Jesus is known as Isa not Jesus. The lists consistantly refers to him as Jesus which is wrong. I do have the question though, how do you think list benefits the article you could make a counter-argument under peer reveiw you feel that strongly on it. Newbie222 13:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- please see talk, and the peer review, its kind of the reason why I'm making the edits I am. If you disagree you should voice your opinion and gather support for it. Thanks for your time. Newbie222 18:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

My knowledge is very patchy, I'm afraid — I'd help out as much as I could, if you wanted, but I couldn't pretend to be an expert witness or anything like that. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islam section at Jesus

Got your message at my talk page - not a problem (and I hope no offense taken either way). My edit was my view - that I personally think that it is easier for people to realize that Muslims believe that the New Testament as it was compiled is corrupted, and most disagree with Pauline Christianity teachings, hense my inclusion as to the "Q" document and the "teachings of Jesus" rather than the teachings of paul. I reckon if I included the history of the new testament as well, that would have been good to clarigy. I do understand the Muslim belief toward "the book" - and the issues with both the old and new testament corruptions. But the simple fact is that they believe the pure teachings of jesus were corrupted - or in other words the Q oral tradition was lost. The history and pauline portions Muslims tend to discount historically. Keep up the good work and happy editing....

Incidentally, which school of thought do you adhere to within Islam? Will help me tailor my comments to your beliefs better. -Visorstuff 19:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Link

Humus, how's a link that has 2 paragraphs about "No gays and dancing" relevant to the Hamas article. And why did you say that I made a POV removal? I only thought it was irrelevant. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is entitled to their POV. I understand that you think it is unimportant. I strongly disagree and support the insertion of that link. I think it helps to clarify any confusion on the issue. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 20:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Humus, there was no POV intended by me. The link is irrelevant. Note how I didn't remove other links only that one. If I added a similar one to the Israel article would you support it?--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where your "2 paragraphs only" come from. The entire article is very relevant and timely. Seems like a case of denial on your side. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 21:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a short article by any standards. Why do you want it there? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my preliminary diagnosis was correct: denial. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 21:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So we should have your way in the end? Wow, how very NPOV for you Humus. Is makes me wonder why you get into so many rv wars. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't personalize it. The change is not "my", it is not "my way" and I don't enjoy this. FYI, earlier I had a policy not to engage in RV wars, but I was taught the hard way that it won't always work. Some editors just wouldn't listen to sensible arguments and would cover or deny irrefutable facts, or use lame arguments like "very short article", etc. Still I always try to assume good faith. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 21:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse it is your way. You gave me no good reason to keep it. It makes me wonder how you will react if I add something like that to the Israel article. I didn't have any political reason the link was clearly unencyclopedic. FYI, good faith doesn't come by reverting additions that are clearly unencyclopedic or accusing others of using "lame" arguments when all you have done is revert. I wont revert the link, because this can easily be used against you when other editors complain. Thanks for "discussing" your edits. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what a clever trap! I gave a perfectly good reason: "it helps to clarify any confusion on the issue", "very relevant and timely". You seem to have some problems exposing the issue: you repeatedly tried to remove the link for no reason (next time please come up with a better argument than "very short article"), you renamed this very section [2], you attacked me and threatened me with future retaliations and you attempted to entagle Israel into HAMAS and gays issue. I don't see how any of this is related to me and I am not interested in continuing this talk. Goodbye. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 23:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I am glad you aren't interested in continuing. I have no interests in wasting my time showing hypocrits and POV warriors how to apply wiki policy especially when their best reasons are "making diagnosis". --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Repentance in Islam

Please visit Repentance in Islam, to see if it can be filled out a bit. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir

I don't think that the indian and paksitani view section should be added because they are going to be biased quickly by both sides. --Madhev0 17:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Kashmir earthquake

Thank you for your contribution at 2005 Kashmir earthquake. Please keep it up!!! - P R A D E E P Somani (talk) Feel free to send me e-mail.

ramadan Mubarak + thanks

Ramadan Mubarak to you too. May Allah be raazi with us this ramadan.

Thank you for putting up the helppakistan.net link. I have been working for the past many hours to update the site. May I also request some wiki help there? People in Pakistan are very new to the wiki tech, and the site needs lots of help plus editing.

Regards, and JazakAllah.

Dhul-Qarnayn

Some help would be needed here .Farhansher 20:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ramadan mubarak

Thanks for the message, and I wish you a happy and blessed Ramadan too. Assalamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullah. :)

Emiellaiendiay 07:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Just so I know, was your vote in response to Terrorism in Pakistan, the Lord's Resistance Army, or in general? Thanks though, you're the first user who I've actually interacted with who has voted. freestylefrappe 02:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha...Idleguy is voting in opposition because I'm not proactive enough (in regard to T. in Pakistan)...guess you cant please everyone..thanks for the expl. I understand now. I was just annoyed over the constant changes from one version to another. freestylefrappe 18:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad

just listed this for deletion; enjoy :) --csloat 07:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your support

thanks for promoting helppakistan.net. Situation really dire...

I have a button on my profiel page to promote the site and the fund... usign site for central coordination that's badly missing. you know, something like FEMA. Pak just set up a coordination body.

195.78.10.73 10:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Glad to see that progress is being made in rescue efforts. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 10:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, that was me. TheProphetess 11:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

How did you change the color of your sign & talk page .Is there some place where I can get info about this . Thanks Farhansher 20:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And yes , thanks for promoting helpakistan . Farhansher 20:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah , looks nice . Thanks . Why isnt talk clickable f.a.y ^{تبادله خيال} ^c 03:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK f.a.y ^{تبادله خيال} ^c 03:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any list where I can find all these colors & codes , like how to add stuff on your talk page . f.a.y ^{تبادله خيال} ^c 03:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well the colors were right here[[3]] f.a.y ^{تبادله خيال} ^c 04:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rv

Thank for this. Uncle Ed 23:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia

HI . I have added some links to the page . If any of you have time , that article needs to be expanded . With the passage of time , it has been shrunk to nothing. Thanks . Farhansher 01:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging for deletion

If you would like to have an article deleted, please use the normal Wikipedia deletion process. Instructions are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Please don't just blank the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Also, if the title can be reasonably directed to another article, the simplest solution is often to create a Wikipedia:redirect. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the page should be deleted, just add it to AFD. Look at {{AfDFooter}} for instructions. Tito xd^(?!?) 00:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We are watching the Special:Recentchanges feed on IRC. You can do it by going to #wikipedia-en-vandalism if you have an IRC client. Tito xd^(?!?) 00:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome back. If you could keep an eye on the Islamophobia article it would be much appreciated. Some person has started removing all the links and replacing them with one link from "Jihadwatch". Yuber^(talk) 04:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Filmography

No problem with me AE as long as it is going to be linked to. Anyway, there was only one movie ever produced (The Message). I dunno if you watched it. The 2 others (the documentary and the Walt Disney style one) are ok according to the critics and they are not biased. -- Svest 03:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up [reply]

Name it Read and Watch only. ;) -- me again

I don't have any objection. However, I think Muhammad in Cinema is better. -- Svest 03:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC) opinion [reply]

Criticism of Islam

Hi. I would appreciate it if you could help me rewrite the section on differences between Hinduism and Islam. I tried to adapt it from this website because I think it is quite important for the article, but I do not have much time at my disposal to reframe it completely. You seem to be quite enthusiastic about working for this article. I am sure you'd help. Thanks

Okay, I might add the section later. The article is currently in the process of edit warring and disputes between 6 or 7 different editors so I will add it when the situation cools down a little. The section will have to be fairly shorter also. You did not "adapt" from anything; you copied and pasted from a Hindu site. As Islam and Hinduism are two completely different religions (unlike Islam and Judaism which are Abrahamic) criticism is not the differences between the two.

Also please do not vandalize other articles (example Islamophobia) and violate copyrights. Any further actions of the sort will get you blocked from editing.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right. You'll agree that Hindu critique of Islam exists, especially with the rise of Hindu fundamentalism (more or less on the lines of the copyrighted article I summarized), precisely because of the huge differences between the two religions that you talked about. I think it makes perfect sense to talk about it now that we have an article of Criticism of Islam. I trust that you will soon put it back with modifications.

Actually that's another point. Do you have any sources which tell about Hindu critics of Islam? Unless you can name this I think that it should be removed. The article is not about religious differences, its about critics who use these differences in an academic, non-fundamentalist manner. By the way, the "rise of Hindu fundamentalism" which is irrelevant to the article anyways, was not evident either in the lines you added; infact the copy and paste job you did was from a Hindu site. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. Now I have a better idea of the thought process going on in your mind. I hope it's not that you want to remove the section first, and then try to come up with newer and newer rationalizations on why you did that. I agree I did not cite my sources. These critques are very well known (are material for undergraduate courses on comparative religion). There is no dearth of Hindu academic criticism of Islam going back at least to 18th century. Because of fundamentalism, this material has become more available because it is more often cited. A list of references I could recommend you at the spur of the moment: 1. Swami Dayananda Saraswati, the founder of Arya Samaj in his critique of modern religions Satyarth Prakash devotes a whole chapter to Islam. Ref 2. Swami Vivekananda's (arguably the best known spokesperson of Hinduism in the West) critique of Mohammed and Islam from the viewpoint of Yogic spirituality are well known. 3. Best known is the Vedantic criticism of Islamic absolutism in religion and morality, and there are many books on this. 4. In fact there have been religious theological debates between most famous 18th-19th century Hindu and Muslim scholars. 5. Aurobindo's critiques are also well known.

So far the only one out of these that I have actually seen criticize any aspect of Islam is Dayanada and he spells the Qur'an about 5 different ways throughout his document. And also, ofcourse the section will be removed first; you can't expect people to insert copy and pasted material. I have already rationalized why it has been removed; it is your job to come up with rationalizations and accurate academic sources to why it should be inserted, especially since you believe it is so necessary. By the way, if it is fundamentalists who are criticizing then that will be indicated in the article. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It is impossible to win arguments against two kinds of people. I'll prefer taking this topic to the discussion page so that knowledgeable editors can have a look.

Ok it's up to you. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's going on exactly but, I will keep an eye on it if something that's not a copyvio gets put up. gren グレン 18:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll prefer to wait until Wikipedia bans me itself, OK?

Don't use threats and other Islamic tactics here. Don't define yourself what is illegal and what is not. What I do is perfectly legal and it is a mere reflection of what you do. Because it were you Muslims who have initially been editing the article in your own favor. I merely do the same thing. You follow your prophet Muhammad, I follow my prophet Ali Sina. It's not you right to do a thing and then when somebody does the same to you, to claim it is "illegal". If my doings are illegal so are yours. Do not bother sending me further messages as I will not reply.

Ok. This someone definitely needs a read of wikipedia's sockpuppet policy. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t

Hey AE. I sent you an email. Yuber^(talk) 23:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Message on the Qur'an talk page

AE, it's really not OK to delete other people's messages from article talk pages. If someone wants to know why the article changed, the material should be there. Please, show enough humility to allow yourself to be criticized in public. It's good -- if extremely painful -- spiritual practice. Zora 20:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (who is often wrong and often has to apologize)[reply]

Look Zora, if there is a personal message directed at me, then please ask me on my talk page. I will be happy to solve the issue. In the past I have always addressed your concerns immediately just like I did in this article, where I readded the material you wanted reinserted, despite your lack of providing sources. I don't see how showing me hostility for me reverting my own edits despite your reasons (which at times are lame, sorry to say) will make the issue at hand any better. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]