User talk:FayssalF/Archive AE

Your recent comments on ANI

when an Admin mis-uses her tools to block half of one of the World's largest cities and its inhabitants are still being blocked four hours after she was told to desist - you tell me who is imcopmpetent and stupid? Instead of chasing me, the Admins should have been sorting it, but that is too much to ask! Now you were fast enough to de-sysop SV for unblocking let's see some action for blocking. I will have this sorted. Giano (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RFAR#Motions_2

Could you please vote or abstain on Motion 1.3 in the Matthew Hoffman appeal? It currently has 5 supports out of ten, but the new Arbcom is going to come in in two weeks, and then everything will be thrown into chaos. It has been up for three and a bit weeks, the appeal itself is a month old. It would be nice to be able to get this over with and move on, instead of leaving it to the new Arbcom to sort out.

Thank you,

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for help on a non-Wiki matter

Fayssal, you are evidently Moroccan, or at least know the country well. I need a little help. I'm in the middle of writing a short story set in Marrakesh and the Draa valley. My hero goes to a village in the Draa (not a real one - this is fiction) to look at old manuscripts in a mosque. My questions are about the words I should use, and the realism of the whole idea. Would a scholar of Arabic (my hero is a postgrad student of Classical Arabic) realistically expect to find old manuscripts in a village like this? If so, where would they be - in a mosque, or where? And what would the name for such a repository be - something based on kutub perhaps, or just "mosque"? I hope you can help, otherwise I'll have to travel all the way to Morocco to do first-hand research, whioch would be expensive, tho enjoyable. PiCo (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; I shall look forward to working with you on the Arbitration Committee in the coming year.
Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Risker. Wishing the same for you. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Promethean

O'Hai there FayssalF, Merry Christmas!

FayssalF,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)

All the Best.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk)

Thanks Promethean. Happy christmas for you and your family as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

An article you created

FYI, I've CSD A7'd Massimo Dutti. I was gonna template you, but I figured nah. Might be pushing it to template an arbitrator. ;) Rockfang (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Template me whenever I am wrong :) Well, i see that someone added a few references and sources. Are you satisfied with them? --FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorta indifferent. I do admit that being mentioned in the Times London is potentially a big deal, but the article in my opinion still doesn't actually mention why the company is either significant or important. But, after a recentIFD/DRV I was in, I've pretty much given up on discussing my point on anything anymore. Thank you for replying though.--Rockfang (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, the Italian Massimo Dutti brand (with 444 stores worldwide) belongs to the Spanish Inditex (€8.196 billion in sales), the owner of Zara. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

feedback requested at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Committees

Hi, if you have time, I'd appreciate any feedback on a slightly crazy idea I had at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Committees. It's related to the Arbitration Committee. Thanks! rootology (C)(T) 18:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

KAOVF is Back & Surprise Surprise among first acts is editing Western Sahara Arties from Stable Language

To no one's suprise KAOVF played his usual game, go silent and then go silent editing. Despite the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Koavf/Community_sanction of September, yesterday KOAVF returned to start editing, and immediately started out with stealth edits to Western Sahara pages. The edits themselves are merely minor, if irritating, semi-POV edits to stable language, but right out of the gate, mate, right out of the gate:

KOAVF Edit History: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Koavf

Immediate W. Sahara Edits: SADR: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic&diff=260640377&oldid=246168664 (Comparison is merely w my last revert from some vandalism, highlighting he removed stable language, not a new addition, never mind he's specifically banned from editing W Sahara; I would note the deceptive "edit description" note marking it as spelling, when in fact it was POV on content).

Sagui El Hamra: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saguia_el-Hamra&diff=260639740&oldid=257753630 (Editing again, rather more defensible insofar as he restored information, however as he is banned and already changing stable but to him controversial text, I would suggest he could have editing a talk page and asked a neutral party to take the same action, without violating his ban.)

Either way, I rather predict he'll be back to his old habits full out shortly. I do hope Admins will actually take some action rather than tut tutting. (collounsbury (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC))

(Added, I added a report here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#KAOVF:_Community_Sanction.2C_editing_banned_pages)

IP is blocked

Salam Faysal, How are you?

This IP:(194.225.166.11) belongs to Tarbiat Modarres University. Apparently it's been blocked due to vandalism. However many students want to use it. Can you please unblock it.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Salam Sayyed. I am fine and thanks for asking. Well, as you may have noticed, this IP used to remove content from a Romania-related article. It was then blocked indefinitely by User:Dmcdevit on May 2007 with an expiry time of indefinite as anopen proxy. More than 18 months have elapsed now and it may be that the IP address has been eventually transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the open proxy closed. I am not 100% sure about that but since you say that some students--who, apparently, have little to do with Romanian articles-- have requested an unblock I see no problem in unblocking it. However, I may not be able to get back to verify any possible misuse of this unblock. You can, Sayyed, keep an eye on it. Otherwise, I am keeping this notice and rationale at the IP talk page in order for any other user or admins to do so. Thanks. --FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, That's your favor. I can't watch the issue and anybody can misuse a public IP. However, I think there should be a good policy or guideline for public schools and universities.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:SharedIPEDU can be added to the top of the IP talk page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Ring out the old,
and Ring in the new.
Happy New Year!
From FloNight

Happy New Year!

Dear FayssalF, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2009 brings further success and happiness! ~ YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is some fuel from my tree to keep you firing in the new year! Happily retired from AC.... YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

File:ConcordiaDistSing.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:ConcordiaDistSing.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look

At your convenience, please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Committees#Content authority: a different approach. It builds on some ideas you mentioned earlier on that page. -- Noroton (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Royal Moroccan Army

Thanks very much indeed FayssalF. When you get the time, the translation of the southern zone, and more importantly, getting references for the whole thing, would be great. I realise that's a big project so I appreciate you offering to start it, at least. Best regards, Buckshot06(prof) 17:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Translation completed. I'll do my best to verify all of that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any unit locations for the Algerian Army? - there's only the 8th Armd Div we have details for at the moment.Buckshot06(prof) 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I don't. -- FayssalF -^{Wiki me up®} 15:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about Amir al-Mu'minin

Hello. I cannot register an account (because I rarely use Wikipedia as it is), but I am writing a book on Islamic Caliphates, and I believe "WikiProject Islam" would be able to help, so I am asking you and others who has put their name on the "Expert Wikipedians in Islamic issues" list who might be able to help. I am about the title "Amir al-Mu'minin" which many Caliphs claim and which is the standard Arab-style Caliphate title. What I want to know is: Do everyone who uses the title "Amir al-Mu'minin", by extension, claim they are also the Caliph? So would the Morroco Sultan, Muhhamed Omar (leader of the Taliban), and the Sokoto Sultan, all implictly claiming the title of "Caliph" by claiming the title "Commander of the Believers"?

(As you are an expert on Morroco, you would likely know what the Sultan of Morroco intended when he claimed the title of Amir al-Mu'minin, I hope. If you can tell me what he means by holding that title, that would be great.)

If you can help me with this question, that would be really helpful.--72.208.76.124 (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The title of "Amir al-Mu'minin" in Morocco was first introduced by the Almoravids though the concept of the Caliph has never been used. The Moroccan constitution stipulates that "Islam is the religion of the State which guarantees everyone the freedom of worship." The Constitution does not specify the terms of worship. This leaves a great freedom of interpretation. "The King, Amir Al Mouminine, Supreme Representative of the Nation, a symbol of its unity, guarantor of the permanence and continuity of the state, ensures respect for Islam and the Constitution. He is the protector of the rights and freedoms of citizens, social groups and communities". The King is, therefore, the guarantor of the diversity of opinions and beliefs. In fact, Hassan II --Mohammed VI's father-- needed clerics in 1981 to agree to legitimize his religious supremacy and support a population torn between a nascent "fundamentalism" and a leftist "atheism" in vogue at those times.

The establishment of al-Imarat Mouminine is now the only one to combine politics and religion. It should be noted that institutions linked to al-Imarat Mouminine as the Higher Council of Ulema, the Ministry of Religious Endowment and Islamic Affairs and the League of Mohammadian Ulema of Morocco, meet the demands of society, without any partisanship.

The King has also the title of Grand Imam. This means that all official fatwas and sermons are issued on his behalf. The political management of the religious affairs in Morocco has been set in place so that the spiritual security is protected, under the Moroccan specificity, represented by the Commanderie of believers, safeguarding the ideological and doctrinal unity in connection with the Maliki rite and Achâarite doctrine, and promote the spiritual through the Sufi experience that has shaped the religious spirit of Moroccans for centuries.

Note that, under the Constitution, the King is also the Chief of the Army. As with the military title, the religious title does not go beyond the scope of the Moroccan State and nation eventhough the Alaouite family claim descent from Muhammad through the line of Fāṭimah az-Zahrah, Muhammad's daughter, and her husband, the Fourth Caliph ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib.

It should be also noted that the function is contested by the movement Al Adl Wa Al Ihssane -a movement calling for a Calipahte. However, the moderate Islamist party Justice and Development Party has never objected to the function.

I hope this is helpful. -- FayssalF -^{Wiki me up®} 18:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is very helpful. Thank you!--72.208.76.124 (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas

Hi FayssalF! You recently removed an addition I made to the Hamas site. Perhaps you didn't notice, but I had placed my addition, references and all, in the talk page for over 24 hours. Nobody even commented on it, so I was surprised to see you removed it after posting. Perhaps I'm being unrealistic, I guess I can't expect every editor to check the talk page first.

In any case, I suspected that the Youtube link my have been considered lackluster to some editors for such a controversial issue. That is why I added an additional link to a newspaper reporting on the speech.

I'm somewhat offended that you didn't clarify why that ref was also unacceptable. I'm also concerned that now that you've made the revision, you'll be hesitant to accept the other reference I provided, whereas if I'd never used the youtube link, you might have left the passage be. I hope this doesn't offend you or seem impolite, but from my perspective of your edit summary, it looks like you didn't consider the other reference and chose to delete all my work rather than amend to remove the youtube link.

Thanks buddy, get back to me. Martin0001 (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Martin, there are two problems with that section. a) verifiability (translation) and b)neutrality (biased sources). They are both policies and not just guidelines. I appreciate the fact that you had used the talk page before inserting the section but the fact that no one has commented doesn't mean that people agree. I'd agree if you just use some of the resources we have at Human shields#Gaza and the West Bankinstead as they are well-sourced and verified. And please, avoid quote farming because we have Wikisource for that. --FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey again. You noted " I'd agree if you just use some of the resources we have at Human shields#Gaza and the West Bank instead as they are well-sourced and verified.", I did use the source from that site... it was that so famed second reference I mentioned. Didn't you look at it? or compare it to the ref provided on the site you asked me to look at?

BTW, thanks for telling me about the quote framing thing. I guess I'll have to try and rephrase it. Or I could copy paste the relevant info from Human shields#Gaza and the West Bank, but I think what's been written for that site could be improved upon.Martin0001 (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I know you used a source apart from the Youtube video. In fact, there are many third party sources that are unbiased wich represent neither side of the conflict. There is a big difference about the reporting of -say- the BBC (an example) and others who may be one-sided. Someone else may argue with you and refer to this video. Wikipedia is about neutrality and using one-sided sources are contradictory to our mission here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see how someone could argue with me and link that youtube video, in which case I would take the position that while their video is a BBC news report with opinions, mine was a direct quote which supports my position that Fathi Hamad said X, Y and Z, where it not for the translation and verifiability issues. But that doesn't matter anymore FayssalF, we're past that. Now I'm asking you why you're telling me "I'd agree if you just use some of the resources we have at Human shields#Gaza and the West Bank" when I did just that. The second source is right from that article. It's after midnight here, so maybe I just wasn't being clear.Martin0001 (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a BBC source at Human shields#Gaza and the West Bank. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

thanks a lot for your block i am now semi retired from wikipedia i'd like to see you contributing to the article i almost reached to an FA status at parts. --Der_Blaue_Reiter 87.203.206.115 (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick favour

Can you please check ar:كالغورلي to make sure I haven't insulted anyone's mother or anything? :) Thanks. Orderinchaos 08:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Good job OIC! Just some minor copy editing was needed (i.e. a city in arabic (madina/medina) is feminine instead of masculine). --FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ireland article names: Request for Remedy 2

The case was closed on 2009-01-04. Attempts to achieve consensus regarding Remedy 1 began shortly thereafter. It is now 2009-01-18, and no consensus has been achieved. Will the ArbCom now proceed with Remedy 2, please? -- Evertype·✆ 10:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom mailing list help

Hi, sorry to bother you, its just that I noticed you are part of the ArbCom mailing list and I require some help on that matter. I sent an email to the mailing list about 36 hours ago and received an automated message saying it was being held and that further action would be taken in the future. However nothing has happened for quite some time and I have received no response from anyone involved with the mailing list. I was wondering what do I have to do to help make the case be taken? Thanks for any help.78.16.66.185 (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. You can send it to me via szvest@gmail.com. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I forwarded the email to you there. Can I confirm you received it? Thanks.78.16.66.185(talk) 13:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Received, read and just shared with the other members of the Committee for their views. Please allow us a couple of days before hearing back from us. -- FayssalF -^{Wiki me up®} 13:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just so you have the rest of the story, this is User:Wikipéire, who is a serial sockpuppeter with a focus on Irish-related articles. His most recent unblock rationale was "Unblock me, or I'll keep on socking to the maximum."[1]. SirFozzie (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's okay SirFozzie I sent a long email explaining the full story. FayssalF and the rest of ArbCom know that I am Wikipéire and that I have socked a lot and my previous conduct wasn't the best. I made a few other points too which I hope Arbcom will understand and acknowledge. There's no need to horribly twist my words, ArbCom know what they are doing and they will make the decision they think is best. May I, SirFozzie quote you this diff regarding the beneficial nature of my edits? The judgements you have made on me seem to be quite rash.78.16.203.109 (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Would like your opinion on something...

Hi,

Remember me? You were once my admin coach. I could use some advice even though I have been an admin for over a year now.

This came to my attention via WP:Administrators' Noticeboard#Insulted by a user.

Could you look at that section and then at Talk:Proprietary software under the sections Talk:Proprietary software#Pejorative?and Talk:Proprietary software#Civility warning?

Some users such as User:Cyclonenim think that User:Jimmi Hugh did not engage in incivility. I think he did but I'm not sure that blocking him would have been the appropriate response. I left him a warning and he responded in a less than civil way. At this point, I see little value in fueling the fire. I am inclined to back off because I don't think he will "see the light". I figure he will go on being obnoxious in disputes but, as long as it doesn't get much worse, it's just something we'll have to put with.

What do you think?

--Richard (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

historian19

I notice you blocked one of historian19 socks for one week only. This is a very persisent copyright violator who just goes from one addresss to another do do his thing. It is very difficult to revert his enormous output of junk. I also notice that 41.249.57.101 is another account he used and which is not yet blocked. Hmains (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That's policy (WP:BLOCK#Block evasion). However, next time it would be indefinite. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

more socks?

Hi, I think user:AlJoseph and user:ScottishGunner (who you blocked) are the same person. Can you check them out? Thanks,Renata (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Renata. I've just taken care of it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

ScottishGunner is back as AlJoseph

A suckpuppet you blocked has now reemerged. Evidence. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work18:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Philaweb. I've just taken care of it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

sock action

I am trying to repair latest damage from hisorian19 and his socks. Can you get rid of this article Helldorado (Video game) that AIJoseph created. It is simply a copy of material found on the web. I noted the web address in the article talk page, which you can check. Hmains (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

crossbow

Hi Fayssal

You were critical of the lead in horses in warfare. Could you write an expanded lead for crossbow. I've been heavily involved in editing this article and want to abstain from summarizing it in fear of POV issues. Some fresh eyes are therefor rather welcome. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice subject while full of controversies. There's a lot of work ahead for the article to become a good one.

I cannot rewrite/develop the introduction while many points are still debated. Anyway, I've just started gathering some sources which I'll bring to the discussion page. We need to discuss those points briefly —since most of them have been treated at talk with good but limited success— before delving into the intro. Getting back to you within a couple of days. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:Unassessed-Class Algeria articles

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed onCategory:Unassessed-Class Algeria articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted becauseCategory:Unassessed-Class Algeria articles has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deletingCategory:Unassessed-Class Algeria articles, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact thebot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I think I am leaving. Cheers PHG (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Passover Massacre edit

Hi Fayssal,

I've brought the edit in question to the Talk page for further comment. Cheers, Jayjg ^(talk) 04:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok Jay. I'd join you there later tomorrow as it is too late here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 07:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

41.248.140.160

I think you will find that 41.248.140.160 is restoring material identified as being historian19 sock content. Sorry to tell you.Hmains (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

41.251.15.166

I believe you will find that 41.251.15.166 is another sock puppet of User:historian19. Based on types of edits being made and comments. Hmains (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As well as 41.251.24.99 ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work21:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably true, based on the nature of edits, some of which repeat previous work by this editor. Hmains (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked with another sock User:PictishMyth. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User:41.249.72.55 ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work17:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User:41.249.15.128 ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work19:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for stepping in to protect my user page against these persistent outbreaks of vandalism by one person.--Zlerman (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A very notable copyright violator who became an edit warrior before delving into racist vandalism. I, and many other users such as Hmains, am keeping an eye on him. One day he'll get tired. We'd got a couple of similar cases before and we are here to stop their acts thanks to the admin tools (blocks and page protections plus the checkuser tool of course in case they'd use new usernames). Contact me if he vandalizes your talk page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Translation request

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but I've come here because you're listed as someone who can translate Arabic, and we need someone who knows the language. Basically, we've got this article listed at WP:PNT, Hosseinfsf, and we don't know what it means. I've run it through a couple of machine translators but it just gives meaningless words, and I don't know ifs accurate or a bad translation. If you have a free minute could you please take a look and give us the gist of it. Thank you--Jac16888^Talk 18:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

was Persian not arabic, never mind. Thanks anyway--Jac16888^Talk 22:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Proposed decision

As an arbitrator marked as active on the above case, please can you look over the proposed decisions and vote as you feel appropriate. If you would prefer to be marked as inactive on this case, please let me know and I'll update the case pages accordingly. Many thanks, Gazimoff 13:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Siamse Cats

Can you send me pics of your cats.I had two Cats both male,one was gray,white mix and other was brown white mix.Gray white ran away,and chutki died in a road accident.User:Yousaf465

Very sorry to hear about the accident. Here's mine --a female called Wiki. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your ArbCom statement

Your statement at RFAR contained a number of errors and/or misleading statements.

1. The MFD discussion regarding my subpage was not closed as "delete," it was closed asno consensus. And the subpage wasn't taken off-wiki and published as a tutorial. That's simply wrong. It was originally written as a tutorial here, it was then exported and imported to MediaWiki.org, and as I mentioned to Newyorkbrad, there were no objections from the sysadmins or developers regarding it.
2. Calling MediaWiki.org "off-wiki" is simply misleading. The project is a direct sister project to Wikipedia, using the literally the exact same software on the same servers.

It disappoints me that people chosen with care to deliberate carefully over complex issues seem to have little grasp of the important details. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

My point stands... As an administrator, You have to act very carefully not to expose the English Wikipedia to any potential danger. And I was chosen—among others—with care to protect Wikipedia. The rest has little importantance to me (i.e. deleted, no consensus, off-wiki etc)... call that wikilawyering.

P.S. Note my mention of the 'English'. That would give you a clue about my reference to off-wiki. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Which point are you making? That's it's okay to simply be wrong? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said, me being wrong over a simple fact cannot override the fact that your page, be it deleted or not, represents a danger to this project. Just take it as if I hadn't stated the MfD. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your comments. Much appreciated. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Països Catalans

Dear Fayssal.

Regarding your block move of this page, I wonder whether it shouldnt actually be blocked at the point when the edit war started, i.e. blocking Països Catalans from being moved to "Catalan Countries" unless there is a consensus for such a move. User Martorell has provided little to none support for his move (other than Maurice and Mountolive are very-very bad).

Here is some comments on the issue you may or may not have seen yet[2]

Maybe wikipedia's rules are other, but it is my understanding that it should be blocked where it was before a single user started his crusade for the move regardless of one of the longest discussions at the talk page I have ever seen.

Thanks for your attention MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 23:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point Mountolive but as you know administrators do not have the right to wait until a preferred version is reverted to before they protect. The protection has a chilling effect. I'll be happy to see you guys at the article's talk page. I'll be reading everyone's arguments there before deciding. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, after having spent so many hours in that talk page just months ago, I dont have the stamina to go over the very same reasons once again just because one guy came with the same old POV. If again a plurality of users proved their point for this article to be named Països Catalans, who would assure them that next time a Catalan nationalist comes with a different idea they wont be having to go through all the fuzz again? So, what is the point in discussing for days, then?

Anyway, if you are willing to, the point of a series of users including myself is at the talk page already. Just look at the first sections and you'll see a huge discussion split in no less than three different sections, more or less consecutive.

As for now, I can't see the point nor I have the energy to engage in that hell again. There's no bloody reason for so doing if nobody is going to protect whatever the results anyway, like just happened this time.

This is just so very disappointing. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 23:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it a democratic votation about wich POV should show in the article? According to WP:V you should give some kind of external source supporting somewhat "Països Catalans has no exonym in English". I understand that "non-existent" things can't be verified, but since I've given several sources that shows in English the name of "Catalan Countries", thisdemocratic sort of POV is not acceptable. But as it dislikes so you say it is not "reliable" for you, but, again, you are not giving any external reference or sources supporting this lack of trust claimed by you. Instead of it, you ban edits of mine at the very first chance.

Don't say "honestly" because you aren't being honest, Mountolive. Your attitude (together with User:Maurice27), again, and again, mainly from Valencian Community article is banning all editings from Catalan-speaker users, since a lot, many lot of times. There are also a very HUGHE debates in Valencian Community, but it never was taken care by you. You also go ahead pushing you ideological POV in all Valencian and Catalan related articles. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 23:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC) PD: Sorry because of my bad English.

Happy FayssalF's Day!

FayssalF has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as FayssalF's day! For being one of our best longstanding editors, enjoy being the Star of the day, FayssalF! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 01:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks biblio. It's just that your signature is almost a month old :) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

OUI et Monsieur Fayssalf est aussi le faire valoir de diffamations et de publications mensongères sur de faux siteshttp://www.xingtech.info/ de Real network ! qui renvoie sur un faux user avec de faux commentaires...BRAVO Wikipedia est aussi une vaste poubelle . Comme celà commence a bien faire nous avons déposé plainte apres de la Gendarmeie Nationale les contenus mensongers etant vraiment trop sensibles ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeanclauduc#Bonjour_Jean_Claude —Preceding unsigned comment added by80.13.190.10 (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello there,

I just thinked to talk to an administrator and founds you; you gotta take a look at this user O Fenian, he vandalise pages and cant stop doing this act numerous times, thanks. DutchSupremacy (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Changing community ban of Dereks1x and Tvoz problem

'Background of proposal: I am proposing an end to the community ban of Dereks1x after a 45 day trial period.

Several months ago, Dereks1x's possible sockpuppetmaster, Seattlehawk94, ran a checkuser on me but was discovered to be a sock of Dereks1x himself. He managed to talk his way out of it. Seattlehawk94 accused me of being a sock.

Since then, I have looked at Dereks1x and it's clear to me why the community has handled the situation wrongly resulting in a lot of drama. The unban is justified and would end years of drama. Seattlehawk94 is not a nice guy but his Dereks1x ban desires looking into again. I think Seattlehawk94 is just one of several people, all of which have been falsely labelled as Derek except one person. We just don't know which one.

I investigated this months ago and even wrote to a few of the users and put away the findings. I've only decided to bring them in the open because there was another mention of Dereks1x a few days ago.

Involved editors:
Original opponents of Dereks1x (Tvoz trio): Tvoz, Bobblehead, Jersyko
Users the trio were opposed to: Dereks1x, Doc United States

Events that happened
3 years ago, the Tvoz trio were in dispute over trivial matters related to politicians, such as how much to write about John Edwards' wife's cancer, if Barack Obama should be called Barack Obama or Barack Obama, Jr., if Barack Obama did not take his lawsuits to trial or if he wrote briefs. These are all things that can be discussed.

According to what I've learned, Dereks1x asked his doctor his medical opinion about Mrs. Edwards' cancer (his doctor would naturally live and edit in the same city). In response, the doctor wrote a medical opinion in the talk pages, a rather bland and neutral opinion which was supported by other doctors on Wikipedia.

Trying to gain advantage in a content dispute, the Tvoz trio sought ban of Dereks1x. Instead of just sockpuppetry, they sought the most outrageous accusation in order to win their quest for a ban. They accused Doc United States of impersonating a doctor. When the doctor proved his degree, the Tvoz trio reverted the proof.

A another user VK35 (I assume Doc United States=VK35) later proved that he was a doctor and Jimbo Wales unblocked him but a few week later, another administrator blocked VK35 for the same reason even though he was not privy to the proof. Jimbo Wales had access to objective proof that he has kept private because of privacy reasons. See Jimbo Wales' reasoning here[3]

Since then, there have been many users accused of being socks, many of them quite innocent looking and good contributors, like Polounit, VK35. It's possible that some of them were socks but if the ban was wrong to begin with, anyone would be unhappy if they were banned. One user, Chergles (the one that caught my attention a few days ago) was declared to be the sock of banned user Anacapa and Archtransit and maybe Dereks1x. This shows the unreliability of the checkuser's secret conclusion because Chergles is from a different part of the country than Anacapa (various posts mention it but I won't for privacy reasons). Looking at the temperment of Chergles and it's very much different from Dereks1x or Anacapa.

I have looked at the original ban and see that it was flawed to begin with. I also see that the Tvoz trio created quite a bit of drama advocating bad editing. In essence, if there is a positive spin to politicians that Tvoz supports, Tvoz will be for it. If there is some not so favorable information, Tvoz will advocate suppressing it. Even when Todd Palin got an article, Tvoz opposed it and blamed it on a Dereks1x sock. The community disagreed with Tvoz and forced withdrawal but not before Tvoz accused enemies of being a sock. This is not the Wikipedia way which advocates neutrality.

Evidence of Tvoz and Bobblehead stalking others The Tvoz trio have probably been laughing their teeth out at the Wikipedia community for going along with their plot for 3 years. It's not fun for me when I'm being accused.

One instance of stalking by the Tvoz trio (Tvoz and Bobblehead) is when one of the accused Dereks1x socks started writing an article called the Astronaut Hall of Fame. Tvoz and Bobblehead followed this person around and started to make all kinds of changes in the article just for harrassment. You can see that they don't edit that article anymore. That shows their lack of good faith and use of WP to harrass.

Proposal

Because the basic reason for ban, i.e. Dereks1x's accused sock Doc United States/VK35 is really a doctor and did not impersonate a doctor, the reasoning is flawed. Therefore, the ban must end.

Collaborating editors who concur with the main facts: Funpika, Jimbo Wales. Funpika says it IS relevant if VK35 is a doctor. Jimbo Wales also wrote that it is relevant. So while they haven't been asked their opinion about the ban removal, they have supported important points in this discussion.

Unban proposal specifics
1. Dereks1x is unbanned. Dereks1x must refrain from editing any American politician's article 45 days.
2. Tvoz, Bobblehead, and Jersyko must refrain from editing any American politician's article for 45 days.
3. Dereks1x, Tvoz, Bobblehead, and Jersyko must not have any contact with each other for 45 days. They must not edit any article among themselves. If they discover that another is editing, they must withdraw. (this prevents harrassment like Tvoz/Bobblehead did in the Astronaut Hall of Fame and other articles)
4. If there is a controversial edit by any of the above, the community should discuss it with the above users with respect and the above users must reply with respect.
5. At the end of 45 days, any of the above users will be banned if they violate terms of the proposal. If they comply, the ban will be completely lifted.

By having this unban, innocent people like me will not have to endure the stigma of being accused of being a sock. Some of the accused users have been very productive (such as VK35 and Polounit) and have not been in conflict with the Tvoz trio. This suggests that they may be innocent users who have been wrongly tagged as socks and leading the trail in completely the wrong direction.

Advantages for Wikipedia to accept the proposal
Opponents of this proposal should be prepared to explain why a doctor can be banned for falsely claiming to be a doctor when they are really a doctor. This has the possibility of becoming bad publicity for Wikipedia if the public learns that people are being banned for false reasons. A graduated unban is the correct and safest way to proceed.

The advantages to Wikipedia are that some very good article writing editors were accused of Dereks1x socks. I suspect that at least one of the socks was not a sock and the checkuser trail has gone on a tangent chasing a non-sock.

Another advantage is that there is irrefutable proof that some collateral damage has happened. Collateral damage is actually a Bush-type mind control term because such damage actually hurts innocent people. It's like if someone murdered your mother and said it was just "collaterl damage".

Likely reception at WP:AN: Some people will try to attack me, just like Dereks1x sock, Seattlehawk94
The likely reception is that administrators and checkusers will not like to hear that there was a wrong ban so they will accuse me of being a sock, most likely Dereks1x's sock. This is just bad behavior. I'm just mentioning it because I was picked on by a Dereks1x sock (Seattlehawk94) but I think he is just one person of several who are accused of being Derek and I'm also mentioning it because Dereks1x was just discussed on AN 2 days ago.Klemm2 (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery byBrownBot (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, theproblems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday, FayssalF/Archive AE, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Versus22_talk 05:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery byBrownBot (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Abd and User:ScienceApologist

Multiple users believed User:Abd's actions on SA's talk page were baiting - see me, Ronnotel, and Avruch. In the Fringe Science decision, one of the new principles was "Baiting: Raising the same issues over and over despite consensus (or lack thereof), persistent low-level attacks and other continuous goading of specific editors in order to exhaust their patience and induce them to lash out in an uncivil manner are disruptive." (emph mine) I wonder if you couldn't find a better basis for the 3mo ban than Abd's actions, which were hardly conducive to a congenial atmosphere. Hipocrite (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite. Abd's actions can be dealt with separately and my position should not be implying that I am supporting his attitude. I won't be taking a soft stance towards him if his case comes before my hands.

ScienceApologist was aware of my yesterday's post at the RfAr page because he posted an additional statement today. My comment at RfAr was crystal clear and I really hoped ScienceApologist to take it seriously. I really wanted him to show us something positive (anything but the same usual actions) and was ready to go for the alternative 1.1. Unfortunately, what ScienceApologist did at his talk page today is a clear violation of WP:TALK. I'd have appreciated it if he has just removed Abd's posts but altering them is a "no no." Everyone should be responsible for their own acts and sincerily, ScienceApologist needs a break to relax. He hasn't shown any single sign of a "take it easy." All of us are mature enough to know and measure when we are breaking the limits. We just don't want this project to become both a battleground and a kindergarten. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! Have a good one. Hipocrite (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hiya

I'm fine, have been trying to learn Arabic with little success.. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I had a tutor... from Morocco. :-D But I stopped seeing him since we weren't going anywhere. Arabic is a really different language..--BorgQueen (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Moroccan dishes

Hello, FayssalF. I come across here from ANI for some help. I need your knowledge of Moroccan cuisine to identify/verify Moroccan dishes. If you have a time, would you take a look at this and have a comment? Thanks.--Caspian blue 23:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

mo pasa reverti

be mo pasa klarifi ina tito. mo espo lo bonai. gratuo. 89.240.193.223 (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for doing that for me. I am glad to see that Michael93555/Sandbox is deleted --Michael (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity

Are you Arabi and are you the only Arab administrator here? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe I am not the only administrator of Arab origins. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Well you are the first I have seen. It seems that most Arab editors get banned in the first few months of registering. You must be mum on the I-P issues to last this long as administrator. :D --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There aren't many since there aren't so many editors of Arab origins. And I don't agree with you that Arab editors get banned "quickly" since I've not witnessed that happening. I do not see any bias in that direction. At the opposite, when it comes to the I-P wiki non-stop disputes I've seen more pro-Israeli editors being banned. Personally, I've had enough of that headache and I must stress that I am not very enthusiastic to see that Wiki conflict ending soon without kicking a few bad apples out of the project. I am thinking that some very harsh sanctions may help ease the tensions in that Wiki area. There is clear Wiki activism of people with clear political agendas roaming around freely and causing massive disruption. My colleagues arbitrators are discussing ways to fix that. I am recused. -- FayssalF -^{Wiki me up®} 19:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I know more pro-Israeli editors have gotten banned. In my short history here, I witnessed two pro-Israeli editors get a topic ban. With the confirmed occurrence of hasbara activities and unjustified accusations of operating in Hamas and antisemitism being tossed around, it is no wonder we're seeing those bans. Anywho, don't take my post as a invitation to the I-P issues debates/disputes/mess/chaos, I completely understand why you would recuse yourself. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Steve's RFAR reply

I put in a suggestion for what its worth.[4] rootology (C)(T) 16:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated. I see the case name has changed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sino-African relations

Good luck with that. I did take a glance at the article, & was glad to see you corrected that comment about Sino-African relations beginning with admiral Zheng He. (Yes, he played an important role, but wasn't the first from China to visit Africa.) I don't know what resources you have access to, but the book by Richard Pankhurst I cited in the article contains a lot of information about trade evidence between East Africa (specifically the Horn) & China before 1800, some of it dating as far back as AD 900. Stuart Munro-Hay'sAksum: An African Civilization of Late Antiquity also discusses evidence of a pre-Islamic Chinese visit to the ancient kingdom of Axum. I put it on my watch list to see how you improve it. -- llywrch (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, I do have no access to English books for the moment. I am just looking at Google Books and Scholar. I'll do my best.-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hkelkar 70.112.4.25

I didnt know what has been done with this sock and pov pusher is he blocked 86.162.66.116(talk) 19:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Both of you blocked for edit warring and the article is semi-protected. You evaded the block issued for the other IP so I made sure to block you for a week. -- FayssalF -^{Wiki me up®} 19:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Economist editorial stance

I have nominated The Economist editorial stance, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Economist editorial stance. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Russavia ^Dialogue 13:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for help

Hey FayssalF. I notice you are a member of The Ottoman Empire MILHIST task force, and I was wondering if you might be interested in helping improve the quality of one of its articles that I have been working on. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Master&Expert. In fact I am busy with [Africa-India relations]. However, I can leave it aside for the moment since it is just a 'start article'. I also haven't touched the Ottoman subject since I finished up Portal:Military history of the Ottoman Empire. But well, if you are enthusiastic about it then let's do it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is Rise of the Ottoman Empire. It needs references, and some expansion. Plus I think it could use more images. I notice you've already done some work on it. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 18:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I am looking at some references and getting them ready. The article needs some prose to get rid of the timeline style. That's a challenge :) -- FayssalF -^{Wiki me up®} 19:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It most definitely is. I suppose it can't be under the sultan headings, then. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, I changed all the headers to "Under the leadership of (sultan)" considering you did so for the first sultan.Master&Expert (Talk) 03:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Traduction

Salut,
J'ai contribué à l'écriture de l'article fr:Bataille de Latroun (1948) et j'ai commencé sa traduction vers Battle of Latrunmais je n'y arrive vraiment pas. De l'anglais vers le français, je m'en tire très bien mais je ne parviens pas à traduire les nuances du français vers l'anglais... Pourrais-tu m'aider ?
Merci, Ceedjee (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Salut Ceedjee. Pas de problèmes. Je jetterai un coup d'oeil. Est-ce le même article que tu travaillais dessus ça fait quelques mois? Je me souviens pas vraiment. -- FayssalF- ^{Wiki me up®} 18:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Salut, Merci !

Je sais que je t'ai parlé d'un article il y a quelques mois mais je ne sais plus lequel.

Ici, je suis vraiment bloqué; je ne parviens pas à traduire l'article (qui existe depuis au moins 8 mois) car mon écriture de l'anglais n'est pas assez bon.

Mais je peux relire et nuancer à partir d'une base...

Attention : ce sera vraiment un long travail mais on peut le faire étape par étape !

Merci d'avance ! / Many thanks !

Ceedjee (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

ça l'air d'un travail acharné! Bon, on va bien essayer. J'ai d'autres trucs à finir; ça va prendre quelques jours avant d'entammer la traduction. Fais-moi un signe en cas de retard. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nous avons tout notre temps ! Wikipedia doit rester un plaisir :-)

Encore merci !!!

Ceedjee (talk) 05:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Sushilkumarmishra

This user has added two templates of protection to state terrorism and has removed sourced content he has been warned earlier of his edits please look into it cheers 86.158.236.53 (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I blocked you for 2 weeks for block evasion. Next time it would be much longer than that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving Astronomy in medieval Islam

Salam Alaykum,

Can you please move Astronomy in medieval Islam to Astronomy in Islam, because medieval is euro-centric approach to describe history. In addition this article includes issues which has happened in modern era. Unfortunately there is an entry with that name, and I can't move it by myself.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

salam Sayyed. I can do it but the intro should reflect that. You probably need to place this in the last part of the lead:

In the 20th and 21st centuries, Muslim astronomers have been making advances in moon sighting, while Muslim astronauts and rocket scientists have been involved in research on astronautics and space exploration.

You may also need to leave a note at the talk page. Which article with the same name? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

She says

http://www.second-congress-matriarchal-studies.com/lecturers.html Jackiestud (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, who is 'she'? Dr. Malika Grasshoff states Social life is based on a model of mutual support which requires relatives to accept responsibilities for each other, which extends across the entire community. The difference between genders and their different tasks and roles do not result in a power-relationship between men and women. There's nothing in there which implies that the society is/was/has been matriarchal. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Your sock now has rollback. Best, WilliamH (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated. -- FayssalF -^{Wiki me up®} 13:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)