The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello Itaqallah, PD-user tag means the user has released/lost all the copyrights, so there is no restriction of use of any kinds. The images which are not free for commercial purposes can not be public domain images. I am not sure the uploader at wikipedia and flickr are same. I am not sure about your second question. Could you explain it again. Regards, Shyam(T/C)12:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do agree with you. Once a user releases the image in public domain. (S)He could not expect to get any credits from the other users of the image. I would like to thank you for trying to contact the uploader. If the uploader on flickr and Vcrs are same then please request her to change the license on flickr accordingly. Thanks, Shyam(T/C)13:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
in fact, no it isn't all that matters. part of verification includes checking the accuracy of the translation (such as for the brief overview attributed to him), as well as ensuring that he has been faithfully represented. ITAQALLAH20:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i see no reluctancy, you need to drop the presumptions. i simply prefer not to use wikipedia as a forum for my personal views. ITAQALLAH16:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Yeah. I was looking for "Salah" in Encyclopedia of Islam but there was no article on that. There was however an article on "Salat". But you must be right. Cheers, --Aminz02:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it's a theory which is hardly entertained by academics. those who do mention it seem to be refuting it, as in R. Marcus's review of D. Nielsen's original piece about this moon-god theory where he underlines some rather significant flaws (cf. Journal of Near Eastern studies, vol. 6, #1, p.60). apart from that, i haven't found very many academics actually discussing this theory let alone giving it credence. a lot of the books in that google search provided on the talk page simply mention nothing of this theory, while others are simply not academic. one of the most recent proponents has been missionary Robert Morey, and this is probably where the theory gained popularity in terms of internet polemic. i'm still looking around for any more academic commentary on this theory. ITAQALLAH15:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[3] has the last line suspecious. I think the last one and a hafl line of this paragraph is not correct. Please correct it if it is wrong. Wassalaam VirtualEye10:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for your welcome, Itaqallah (and appreciate your username). I hope to become, in time, an active member and contribute to the greater good. I'm very interested in keeping my opinions from influencing my work and equally interested in removing the forceful and destructive opinions of others. There's a lot of cleaning up to be done. Although I jump around everywhere, I am -for obvious reasons- heavily interested in Islam-related topics, which I see is your main interest. I look forward to working with you. Peace. --RumiNationZ19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. Thanks for explaining for revert of my removal of what I consider to be a false translation of the shahadah. However the 'reference' is a polemical and not a scholarly site. If there is a well-established dictionary which has 'ilah' translated as 'God worthy of worship', we can let that 'translation' stand. Indeed, in your comment on my userpage you admit that it is not a translation, which makes me wonder why you reverted. I agree that it would be relevant to put this interprepation somewhere in the article, as such, rather than as a translation.
Additionally, this 'translation' (unintentionally) opens up the implication of polytheism, which I'm sure all Muslims would want to avoid.
The article is biased and unencyclopedic. I am obviously not the only person who thinks so. Get over yourself. IF and ONLY IF you promise that you and your friends will not start an edit war, will I participate in the article besides keeping the tags in place. I have no desire to have you start another edit war and then have your friends the biased admins step in to abuse their power again. The tags, however, are perfectly valid and remain until the article is fixed or deleted.RunedChozo 17:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If you consider this inflammatory, get over yourself. I'm staying within the bounds of policy and that's that. If you promise not to edit war, then I'll contribute. Otherwise, YOU are the one who is deliberately making it so others can't contribute, so the tags stay. RunedChozo17:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is This User an admin of wikipedia? I wonder what lame one-liners he is sending on the talk pages about Muhammad (SAW). Totally illogical. No answer to the dozens of points raised by the wikipedians against the picture, but just sending one lines to give the illusion as if many people are supporting the picture on the article [Muhammad]. How can I know if this user is admin? Some people are pretty cheap here, they dont feel any responsibility to answer the points but just to cast their vote and run away.
VirtualEye05:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I express what 'I' feel or have opion about right or wrong. Because I have my own brain in my head and my own conscience. Sorry, if you do not express what 'you' feel or think about right or wrong then I will be justified to conclude that you have someone else's brain in your head. This seems funny, but alas its not.VirtualEye09:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try. I'm flattered that you'd go to the trouble of impersonating me on a forum just to try to get me blocked from wikipedia. You really could have done a better job. I assure you that no matter how many times you try to get me blocked from wikipedia I will never enter a state of submission. Arrow74021:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that some of those editors who complain about "tagging" are comfortably add tags to the articles. --Aminz22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Itaqallah. I know that the unreferenced nature of the section is a big gap in the article. However, I'm going to have some trouble finding all the necessary refs. I added the section as a kind of stub placeholder because it is so important within the history of the Muslim world, as I'm sure you'll agree. I wrote it up mainly from the articles that it references. Some of them cite their references, others not. In the meantime, if you can suggest a good text for an overview, I'll look it up. Itsmejudith23:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I haven't done more on this and I'm going to be on wikibreak now. I have found some book references which look to be relevant and hope to look them up, with a view to adding them when I'm back, or may email them to someone who can help.Itsmejudith22:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please sign if any of these things applies to your understanding of this issue. Please put you name under all of the options you think would be acceptable. You can sign all or none of these, I'm hoping this will give us a more-fine grained understanding of the issue. [5]futurebird23:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assalamualikum,
I have a suggestion, based on wiki policies of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, to solve the dispute over images of our beloved Prophet.
I have put a template here as to how we should resolve the dispute. Please leave a comment regarding this on my talk page. If you like this template please don't put it up yourself. I am looking for some sort of concensus. If you don't like the template please leave a suggestion for improving it.Bless sins03:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to get your attention towards the Faith Freedom page. My eidts are being deleted for no reason. I have made some comments regarding the article and its presentation. which violates many of the Wiki rules.
would you like to discuss. I am not against deleting the article or anything. Rather i am for putting the article in its right perspective. for example.1) the article alleges that it has 20,000,000 visitors. I agree however i state that it has only 1200 members who write ever wrote on its fourmns. I state that all the stuff on the website is read around only 10,000 times out of the 20,000,000 visitors it had. all this has been referenced by me (site meter is the ref:)Aditionally each visitor spends 5 minutes or less on the entire site and less than 5 seonds on each page.
Then there are violations of references. No outside references are given. If given they are reports of Ali sina himself. How can that be credible when speaking about his own self.
Z2qc104:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are removing sourced material and claiming that you are removing OR. I suggest that you remove the material which is not sourced and address any issues you have with sourced material methodically. Arrow74018:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're biting the newbies or whatever they call it. It might be easier for you to revert everything but what you should do is remove the OR and discuss the rest. Arrow74018:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ASA. Desperate help needed on islamophobic article Ramadan riots which is actually the same thing as French riots. Claims that the french unrest in the ghetoes was motivated by hatred of jews and christians as allegedly commanded by the quran. Support speedy deletion. Aaliyah Stevens00:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need to find more caligraphy of Prophet. What you think about Belongings on of Muhammad, do you think anyone may go in lead. Furthremore, these coins also have calligraphies them too [6]. I will welcome your comments about these pages. Wassalam. --- ALM16:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add unsourced names to this article; adding unsourced names of living people is a violation of WP:BLP. If you want to improve the article find sources for any names you would wish to add. Carlossuarez4601:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One person's settled fact is another person's contentiousness. As for the dead; without sourcing including them violates WP:V. They need sourcing too. Carlossuarez4601:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add back all the dead people and tag them all for cites, be my guest, I prefer not to add unsourced material myself but to each his/her own. Carlossuarez4601:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arrow, check the history: we agreed to stub it from a whole bunch of uncited POV from both the pro- and anti-camps, and we've been evenhanded in keeping it all out. I do agree with many of the criticisms - it is absurd (as well as quite unorthodox) to state that Muhammad was prophesied in Hindu scripture (for starters) and repugnant to support Osama Bin Laden. However, that doesn't mean we can turn this WP:BLP into a platform for our opinions, cited to Youtube videos. At the same time, Naik's - excuse me, Dr. Naik's - minions keep flooding it with material from the IRF's own website. It's a bloody mess.Proabivouac01:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Levy p.79 'the children of the marriage of two slaves are slaves and belong to the owner of the woman. Bold textIf the free man marries a female slave not his own, the children become the property of the woman's master (author note: this is case also if the children of a slave girl are born of an irregular union.)Bold text
... Bold textThe children of the married slave-girl (not an umm walad) will be slaves and belong to her owner, whether their father is a slave or a free man.Bold text
thanks for the clarification. you have misread: he is not talking about children borne from the master and his slave. he is talking about children the woman already has. ITAQALLAH14:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you made the remark on my talk that 'any child born with at least one parent free is also free' and I provided the passage which shows you that, unfortunately due to the nature of Islam, it is only the case where the one parent owns the other as slave
your recent contributions suggest that you have been spontaneously, habitually, and disruptively reverting over a series of articles, without really looking at exactly what you've been reverting to. what i find worrying is that, from at least my perspective, you seem to be acting the meatpuppet, and reverting "for" DavidYork, who unfortunately saturates his contributions with less than neutral original research (as you know full well), merely illustrates this concern. ITAQALLAH03:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed not. Your incivil accusations of such have not gone unnoticed, however. Your wholesale reverts are the source of any problem you have with my edits the last couple of days. In the instance I referred to above, I didn't look at the whole diff. Having realized the extent of the removals I noted my mistake here and on DavidYork's talk page. Arrow74007:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wholesale reverts are the only way to deal with wholesale violation of wikipedia policy. i see nothing "incivil" about my observations. ITAQALLAH17:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. I know that a certain editor is causing frustration. But we have to be careful about how we tackle it. large scale reversions just aren't going to work on this one. Help me slowly but steadily work through each issue with clearly stated reason for each step. I know it's frustrating. Notice how i went through a lot of his edits from 6 march and commented on each one. And I documented each step. Documented, rational, well-argued reasoning will win out - not reversion wars. For example, i went through a number of his on-line citations and proved that he had misrepresented them, and I modedifed the article to reflect what the references actually said - I am sure you agree this is a good result. As I documented it in the talk and edit summaries, we can go back and refer to it when tackling it. I've found that this approach eventually wins out with him. Help me on this one please. :-) Of course I'm open to suggestions and your opinion on the battle. kind regards. Merbabu23:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes, a lot of work. But, i presume you saw my reply to Aminz's comments on the talk page. I'm happy to start at a GAC version, and then move forward. Merbabu00:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further: I might be setting myself up for a fall, DY has placed a suggestion on the talk page as requested. I’d encourage you to rationally explain any objections etc. At least if others are persistent in being reasonable, DY will too one of two things: (1) he notice and use the opportunity to be reasonable himself (a good thing) or (2) be unreasonable, which will be clear to all and thus ‘hang himself’ metaphorically speaking (I know which one I think is more likely). On the other hand if everyone behaves combatively, then DYit is just another edit war.Merbabu01:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you aren't going to let anyone know how the Black Stone is going to have two eyes and a tongue to explain itself. And in citing a source; this would be difficult since nobody knows about this aspect of the Black Stone; at least no one besides you and me at this point: and Gabriel; the "voice of God" who was walking around in Paradise singing when he found Adam and Eve hiding in the bushes. Could you put what I wrote back and just take out the "hidden signifigance" part?Unicorn14401:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC) let me know!
I believe I have discovered that the answer to my "deletion" problems comes from not putting the sources directly in the additions themselves; at this juncture I will add the sources with your templates or use whatever methods I can conjure so that folks can see that[reply]
A. I am not just making this stuff up and
B. It is based on serious research going back decades and is impartial; objective: and verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unicorn144 (talk • contribs)
Itaqallah, you wrote, "as for consensus, the previous consensus version was a lead without any image." A few questions:
When was this consensus in effect?
What evidence, if any, shows that there was such a consensus? (There may be some, but I've not yet seen it.)
Upon what considerations was this consensus based? (It was only mid-way through mediations that I'd heard any argument other than that after religious taboo.)
from WP:CONSENSUS: ""Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it." - for as long as i can remember prior to this dispute (i've been checking through the history: back through Aug 06, and probably even a year on top of that), there was no lead image, and this was one of the constants in the numerous disputes involving the lead. when a disruptive editor then recently decided to edit war in order to include a lead depiction, many editors removed it. as we know, the page was then locked on that version, rewarding the unilateral efforts of the edit warrior (he certainly racked up 4+ reverts in much less than 24 hours). ever since, there has been dispute over the lead images. i took the image out of the lead as soon as the article was unprotected, stating that there was no consensus on what we were to do regarding the lead, and we shoud thus return to the previous version until we conclude mediation. hope that answers your questions. ITAQALLAH00:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ItaqAllah, explain to me the vandalism you committed by removing VALID links to FFI and Prophet Of Doom.net in Criticism of Islam. As Arrow said, "attempt to justify your edit on the talk using WP:EL". Go on now. --Matt5713:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wouldn't it help to look at the talk page before trying to assert yourself in such an uncivil manner? it would also help to look at the edit itself: i didn't remove POD. ITAQALLAH07:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merzbow is wrong: FFI is not an extremist hate site as I discussed on that Talk page for that article. You should have not taken out the links without giving solid arguments first. Relevant links will stay in all articles. And sorry, Taqiyya is a part of Islam. Further, the link to FFI had been sitting in that section since a LONG time. It wasnt until I moved that section to the right where it belongs and because that section has more prominence now, suddenly you had a problem with it. Nothing surprising, seeing the nature of your edits and those of similiar users.--Matt5713:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, do not troll on my talk page. please read the talk page guidelines, and comply accordingly. i trimmed the website because a) the links were unnecessary, and; b) it unbalances the EL section, there should be equal number of critical/apologetic links. ITAQALLAH17:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ItaqFAllah, please dont accuse me of trolling and putting false labels on me. a) The links are necessary. b) You are welcome to introduce more Apologetic links in that section. The SAQ link will stay. c) It does not unbalance the EL section. This article is about the Criticism of Islam, hence the links reflect that. --Matt5718:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, such statements are not known as trolling, thats false. Please dont accuse people of trolling again. Now: the page says "On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views." - 80% of the world doesnt believe that Mohammed was a prophet, which means 80% of links in any article about Islam should be non-Muslim in nature. Do you agree to enforce this policy now? I will however attempt to bring in some links to balance the section out, however the SAQ will stay. Actually you should be doing this, so why dont you go ahead and balance the section by bringing in links from your point of view? --Matt5719:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
actually, i shouldn't be "doing this", i tried balancing the section only to be reverted. so please do go ahead and balance it. my 'point of view' is irrelevant on Wikipedia. ITAQALLAH19:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, if we have less than 80% of the links on any article about Islam, which are non-Muslim in nature, that is unbalanced. If you want to balance that section, you will have to bring in sites from the other point of view.--Matt5719:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non sequitur. why don't you focus on the issue at hand? by your flawed logic, the number of Muslims vastly outnumbers the numbers of critics. in cases like this, we are not to present one view more dominant than the other. again, i will re-iterate: demonstrate your adherence to wikipedia policy and balance the section you unbalanced, else i will simply take it upon myself to balance the section how i see fit, in accordance with WP:EL that says we keep links to a minimum (i.e. we don't need websites rehashing the same polemic). ITAQALLAH19:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. The number of critics of Islam vastly outnumbers the number of Apologetics of Islam. You're comparing the number of civilians to number of critics. Likewise the civilian population is outnumbered as well, 1:5 (1 billion:6 billion). Pro-Islamic opinions are thus a minority, according to your own argument. We are not to give undue weight to minority opinions. Favourable opinions of Islam are a minority opinion then, as compared to unfavourable opinions of Islam. You can take out whatever links you want to right now, but in the end the links will be back and the section will be better than before, you can count on that. Some links are crucial and will remain. Also if you wont take off that Quranic verse from your home, do you mind if I insert some of my own verses and hadiths on my user page? Quoting Quran and hadith is not wrong I guess, since you are doing that as well. --Matt5719:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Favourable opinions of Islam are a minority opinion then, as compared to unfavourable opinions of Islam.", no, because most Muslims will naturally have a pro-Islam opinion, whereas there's no certainty that most non-Muslims possess an anti-Islam point of view. "The number of critics of Islam vastly outnumbers the number of Apologetics of Islam" that's not remotely verifiable, and it's probably spurious. i'm enjoying underlining the flaws of your arguments, but i'd imagine we should keep the number of apologetic/critical links equal to not favour one opinion over the other. ITAQALLAH20:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<r> Like I said, you can bring in links from your point of view but dont delete valid links just because you didnt find links from the other side. Alright, soon you'll be seeing a verse from the Quran or a hadith on my user page. I'll try to pick some nice ones. If anyone has a problem with that, we'll bring it and take out your verse here as well to be fair.--Matt5720:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Like I said, you can bring in links from your point of view but dont delete valid links just because you didnt find links from the other side." EL states linking should be minimal. a number of the websites rehash the same polemic. what's needed here is trimming, not bloating. also, do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. my user page is demonstrably in violation of no wikipedia policy, make sure yours isn't either. ITAQALLAH20:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mine isnt either now. Do you agree with my latest user page? I dont think Point applies to a User page and I dont think it is wrong to quote the Quran or Hadith on our user pages. You have done so and so can anyone else. Or else explain how my quoting is a violation and yours is not. --Matt5720:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I did was not trying to prove a point. A verse quotation is a verse quotation, just like your page, like other people's pages. Please dont try to apply every little Wikipedia policy where its not even applicable. Have a look: User:Matt57. Let me know if there's a better verse/hadith I can put there. I'd rather have just one though.--Matt5720:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was, you are trying to apply POINT on my user page and it does not apply as I am not trying to prove a point. Well thanks for inspiring me to also have an Islamic quotation on my user page. There are SO many to choose from, I had to choose a good one, actually its the first quote on the POD link you wanted to get deleted from ProtectWomen's page. Thanks again. I think we are done here. I will review the EL links on the Criticism pages some other time. --Matt5721:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked what the POV concerns were in that section. You said it was about the language of its leadin, which I reformed and then removed the pov-section tag. Now you want the tag back and I have complied. Is there anything else? POV-tagging without specifying reasons on talk doesn't aid editing.DavidYork7107:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In your edit here, you added Abeer Qassim Hamza. How does this belong to this template? What is 'controversial' about this link? This is a case of murder. There was nothing religious involved here. Theo Van gogh is obviously an exception. His murder was religiously or should I say, Islamically motivated as the murderer indicated. This list needs cleanup. --Matt5715:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Itaqallah, this is a bit much. We both know that the most active Muslim editors are, at best, a mirror image of DY. I haven't seen you complaining about Aminz's cherry picking, of which his recent edits at the Muhammad and the Jews section of the Muhammad article are the most recent example. DY's edits are sourced, and if he has been guilty of a misuse of a quote or two in the past he now understands and has ceased to do so. You have been even worse than usual recently with your justifications for reverting, like your most recent revert at Islam and children. Before you remove the mote from another's eye, first remove the beam from your own (tahrif again?). Arrow74009:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DavidYork has engaged in a pattern of disruptive editing, misuse of sources to forward a POV, and, with the latest article he made, a complete disregard for neutrality and encyclopedicity. Levy says nothing about slave children. Khomeini is not a spokesperson, or even related to, Islam. and presenting the actions of governments as relevant to Islam (whether or not they claim to rule by Sharia is irrelevant) is political POV-pushing. endorsing tendentious wording as in the marriage section is also an utter misuse of the sources to forward an agenda, which DavidYork is persuasively demonstrating he has. ITAQALLAH09:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
furthermore, your unwavering support for such tendentious editing does not reflect very well on your part. i haven't seen any of Aminz' edits, as there has been far more problematic editing meriting my attention. ITAQALLAH09:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not incivil. I pointed out that you took a quote and reported the second half of it as the whole truth when the first half goes against your POV. That's an unfortunate choice. Arrow74021:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More accusations. No part of it was against my POV. Can you quote the part which was against my POV? Aside from that I had 3 sources and I was using all of them(one of them could be found here [10]). --Aminz21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Itaqallah, I have a question you might be able to answer: would the use of the phrase "Alhamdulillah" in non-sacred or ironic contexts be considered offensive by the average Arabic-speaking Muslim, or is rather like the English-language expressions "thank God!" or "Hallelujah", originally sacred but now colloquial? Or somewhere in between?Proabivouac05:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are skewing the intro by removing damning facts and only leaving less damning ones. "repeated later" is a feeble justification. Please stop. Arrow74019:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you don't seem to be aware of what you're talking about.. the passage i removed is not "damning" in the least, especially when it's in its correct context as seen later in the article:
"In the early days of Islam, he notes, a plentiful supply of new slaves were brought due to rapid conquest and expansion. But as the frontiers were gradually stabilized, this supply dwindled to a mere trickle. The prisoners of later wars between Muslims and Christians were commonly ransomed or exchanged. According to Lewis, this reduction resulted in Arabs who wanted slaves having to look elsewhere to avoid the restrictions in the Qur'an, meaning an increase of importing of slaves from non-Muslim lands,[19] primarily from Africa. These slaves suffered a high death toll."
please look closely at what you edit before shooting from the hip. also, your other POV insertion was against WP:LEAD. please edit in accordance with wikipedia policy and guideline. ITAQALLAH07:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the fact that Islam led to slave raids outside of dar al-Islam responsible for the enslavement, mutilation, and forced concubinage of millions is not damning, well, I'm actually surprised. Please explain [11]. Arrow74009:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please calm down Mr. Chola, and see WP:SOAPBOX. it's a little 'strange' of you to suggest i haven't stated exactly what from WP:LEAD your unencyclopedic insertions violate. i quite clearly stated that the lead summarizes the article, and it does not forward any significant fact not present in the article itself. had you read up instead of engaging in the typical reactionary reverting then you wouldn't be so bemused. thus, your attempt to cherrypick (ironic that you accuse Aminz of this) "damning" material from Lewis and then give it prominence in the lead reveals the disruptive nature of your editing. as for your drive-by reverting on Zakir Naik, you are participating in a WP:BLP violation. perhaps that's another page you need to spend time reading up on. ITAQALLAH16:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop labelling my edits as "reactionary" or drive-by. You have no way of knowing how much time I spend reading an article and its talk page before reverting. As such, your accusations amount to incivility. Now, about the Islam and slavery article, the intro should be a balanced introduction to the subject. The sentences you have devised various reasons for removing could in fact simply be placed in the body and then the violation of the "helpful suggestion" at WP:LEAD would be resolved. About Zakir Naik, I did watch the video and you really don't have a leg to stand on. Arrow74018:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you have been caught several times making impulsive reversions while not really paying attention to what you have been reverting to. nothing stops you from representing Lewis in the body. it doesn't belong in the lead. WP:BLP is pretty solid ground, and an uncompromisable policy. ITAQALLAH19:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your first sentence as acceptance. BLP is an uncompromisable policy. However, quoting someone almost verbatim is not a violation of it. Arrow74019:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
your formulations are a far cry from "almost verbatim", and exclusively focusing on that which seems controversial also comes across as libellous. regardless, myself and Proabivouac (i think others too) agreed that the article should not become a POV magnet for Naik's beliefs, and that it should be written using good secondary (not primary) sources. you can take a look at the article history pre-stubbing to see the POV mess. ITAQALLAH19:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont like the links being removed. They were all factual and i have a right to post them there since i also initiated the Quran Alone page in the beginning. JonnyK
Hi Itaq,
Do not vandalize content on Wikipedia, as you did to Zakir Naik. If you would like to experiment please use the sandbox. Best regards Giordaano20:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please do not place tags on my page in retaliation for my having warned you for inserting libellous material on articles. furthermore, the warning is bogus: implementing BLP is not vandalism. ITAQALLAH20:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AuA, Kindly have a look at the activities of Qadiani missionaries, such as: [12] and this user who does not even have username but is accusing any non-Ahmadi for vandalism, while vandalizig articles to make them a bundle of Ahmadi teachings and hence making them litter instead of literature. Most of these users do NOT use wikipedia account so that their contributions can not be tracked nor we can talk to them. I request a ban on such nameless terrorist IPs who attack and disappear. How can we give answer to a user who has no identification but he is very active in vandalizing?
They are making one side POV articles which are just written and edtied by Ahmadis. Such as: Kashmir Committee. Kashmir Committee? What Kashmir Committee? This article is just one example of the efforts to prove the points by the followers of Mirza Ghulam Qadiani.
Please check the article history Ahmadi articles including Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
Wow, you and Aminz have been doing your best to keep the OR out of that article there haven't you? I'm reviewing your editing there... it is astonishing. The way certain parts of the article are currently evokes images of User:Patchouli. (→Netscott)03:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it is currently the norm for certain articles where people with a clear agenda deeply misrepresent sources with their own OR and attempt to squeeze every ounce of negativity they can find in a source. this kind of editing is not acceptable on Wikipedia, and i only hope their actions are rightly exposed to the scrutiny of the wider community. ITAQALLAH07:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Karl Meier07:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the policy and act according to it. If I see you single out editors making such attacks again, I will bring your behavior to the attention of a wider range of Wikipedians. -- Karl Meier07:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this seems like a stretch, but as he's failed to sign in in the past, such as on WP:ANI/3RR where I signed one comment for him, it seems at least possible that he has not yet checked his messages and realized that he is supposed to be blocked.Proabivouac15:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't actually follow. He's edited without logging on before, for no obvious reason besides negligence, his comments to the report indicated a less-than-perfect understanding of the rule, and this is his first block...I see none of the signs of deliberate evasion - pretending to be someone else, revert-warring, etc. - instead he appears to be proceeding as if nothing has happened. Of course, if there were there found evidence of an intent to evade, a substantial extension of the block should be appropriate.Proabivouac15:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i would agree with Proabivouac that there may not be deliberate evasion intended simply because of the paucity of the IP's edits. if it continues further, however, then there may be cause for concern. ITAQALLAH20:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Itaqallah, would you an Aminz keep an eye on this article as well? David York appears to be editing with the notion that if something is Arab then it is by default Islamic... Thanks. (→Netscott)16:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the message you left on my page, you are more likely to get a positive response if you are polite and specifically state your objections. Spewing words like "disruptive" will get you nowhere. Also you need to calm down and get your facts straight, specifically I have not used the word "vandalism".
As for Schimmel, I think you are engaged in an argument about children of slaves with someone else, not me. You really need to check your facts before you start making accusations on the pages of other users.
Also when you address someone, make the effort of getting their name right, it is "Nayan", not "Nayen". NN05:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Rvv" = rv vandalism, unless you don't know what terminology you're using. your actions are indeed disruptive, in the light of your erroneous editing which violates WP policy as has been highlighted to you by numerous editors. "As for Schimmel, I think you are engaged in an argument about children of slaves with someone else, not me." no, i don't have the wrong editor at all. you are misrepresenting Schimmel, and inserting unqualified assertions, and you have done this over multiple pages. please stop. ITAQALLAH11:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting tedious. I have no opinion on Schimmel. I reverted the deletion about sex and female captives, it has nothing to do with Schmimmel. Go away. NN11:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, I have no opinion about Schimmel, nor did I add any text about her work. I merely restored text about female captives and non-consensual sex. In that reversion was also included text about Schimmel. Also you did not address the issue of falsely accusing me of calling another edit "vandalism". Now please go away. NN12:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Also you did not address the issue of falsely accusing me of calling another edit "vandalism"." - see above, first sentence of the comment at 11:40 UTC. also, please try to remain civil, especially as you have been requesting politeness from others. ITAQALLAH12:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I am trying to be patient here. I gave you the benefit of doubt. I searched ALL contributions I have made for both "11:42" and "11:40" [14]. I also searched the article page [15] and the article discussion page [16]. The result? NOTHING. Obviously you have some sort of handicap as you write "11:42" on my page and "11:40" on your page and neither gives any results. I am sorry, but I cannot continue this discussion with you, it is not possible for me to debate someone whose facts are so wrong. Bye, NN12:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
first, accusing me of having a handicap is out of line:
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
second, you should really pay attention to my comments. you erroneously stated that i hadn't addressed your response concerning vandalism, and so i said refer to the comments timed 11:42 on your page, and 11:40 on my page. whose comments do you think i'm referring to? also, do not blind revert me as you did here, especially when you did not bother addressing the concerns of source misrepresentation. yet again you have condoned the misrepresentation of sources, and i would suggest you stop before others make note of this too. ITAQALLAH12:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
