User talk:CltFn: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:11, 13 March 2007 editCltFn (talk \| contribs)5,944 edits →[]← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:13, 13 March 2007 edit undoKirbytime (talk \| contribs)2,961 edits →I disagree with the following:Next edit →
Line 347:		Line 347:
	:Kirbytime, though I try to avoid discussing religion, or asking after the views of others, I am now completely confused: how do you square all this with your professed belief in what is typically considered the theistic religion of Islam?] 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)		:Kirbytime, though I try to avoid discussing religion, or asking after the views of others, I am now completely confused: how do you square all this with your professed belief in what is typically considered the theistic religion of Islam?] 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:: Kirbytine, your explanations are interesting and I see that you are adept at exploring the linguistic ambiguities of some of the tenets I presented. I cannot say that I disagree with your point of view, but this may just be a case of you say tomato and I say --] 01:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)		:: Kirbytine, your explanations are interesting and I see that you are adept at exploring the linguistic ambiguities of some of the tenets I presented. I cannot say that I disagree with your point of view, but this may just be a case of you say tomato and I say --] 01:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

			:::I am a former Muslim. I'm an atheist now. But I still think that most anti-Islam is stupid Christian rhetoric of pot calling kettle black. Also, that video sucks. I got a better video:


			--<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="pink">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 05:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

	== ] ==		== ] ==

Revision as of 05:13, 13 March 2007

Islam in the U.S.

Any further reverts to the article could cause either of us to break the 3rr rule. Please read my edit summary in my second-to-last edit on the article. BhaiSaab 16:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? How do the videos support this part of the statement "...have served to project negative images of disaffection not representative of the wider Muslim community in the eyes of witnesses" and why is it that there are only negative videos in the article? BhaiSaab 17:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why did you reinsert it? BhaiSaab 21:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I removed the sentence - it has no source. Like I said before "the impact of these displays of fringe groups has not been documented and there is no source provided in this article for their impact." BhaiSaab 22:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So why do you choose to only use videos of fringe groups that an undocumented noteworthiness or impact? In your efforts to improve the article, have you found no better videos for a useful representation of the Muslim community within the United States than that of some extremists? BhaiSaab 22:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion of them (Islamic Thinkers Society) is that they are, in contradiction to their name, morons. If you want to source a statement about the presence of a fringe ideology like the ITS in the U.S., the use of a newspaper article about them would have the same effect - would it not? I would not, however, dedicate more than one sentence to them because their presence in the United States has not been significant nor particularly noteworthy. BhaiSaab 23:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That documentary is so biased. BhaiSaab 23:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Quran

We're having a dispute there about sources. I know you're busy with other things, but if you have time could you check that out? Arrow740 22:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Relentless - The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East

Your recent edit to Relentless - The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Misplaced Pages articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 18:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My Arbcom

Perhaps you'd like to look at the "evidence" presented by BhaiSaab. I see some interesting similarities between his dealings with you and those with me.I would welcome any contribution you'd like to make in

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence.

Thanks. Hkelkar 06:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:VidaSamadzai.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:VidaSamadzai.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 01:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:DawnM.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 04:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

John Esposito and Saudi Funding

If you insist on trying to provide a connection between John Esposito and Saudi money then please do so with factual statements. You know as well as anyone that "he", John Esposito, is not "the recipient" of any such money but that Georgetown University and the Center he runs are (hence your statement is FALSE). Also, stating that this money was given to "promote Islam" is an assessement on your part and not part of a version expressed by either Georgetown University, John Esposito or the Saudis. Please provide a reference if you really want to claim so. The reference you are well aware of ] used in the John Esposito entry states no such thing. Thanks.PelleSmith 04:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad Faith?

Here is the diff where you yourself introduced said reference from above into the John Esposito article ... ]. So what gives?PelleSmith 04:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your response: That's an interesting theory, but what is it even based on? You think Esposito is friendly to Wahabism? I don't agree, but you know as well as I do that this is not even the point. The point is that good faith edits on Misplaced Pages do not include a conscious misrepresentation of basic facts. Do you have a reference to support your claim that Esposito himself is the recipient of that money, or that the intent of any of the involved parties is to "promote Islam"? Because you reverted my change claiming that "actually it is absolutely true". Then on my talk page you have defended your edit by claiming that what you said "is based on what Prince Alwaleed Bin Tala said". What exactly did he say? Where can I or any other editor see what he said? You are clearly well aware of the reference above as you added it to the Esposito page yourself, and this reference says no such things. Now if you want to know why I care so much about this. Personally I'm sick of the edit wars in which extremists from both sides of contentious ideological divides act with dishonest intent to promote their respective POV. This has to stop because all such edits sabotage the integrity of Misplaced Pages.PelleSmith 13:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You know you never did tell me what the Prince said. Its pretty bad form to go around justifying edits with information you know to be unsubstantiated or blatantly false.PelleSmith 05:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly bad faith. Here you go again. If you are going to proceed in this manner something has to be done about it.PelleSmith 14:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess we're all dreaming of the day when we can prove that Esposito isn't a reliable source. Arrow740 07:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:DawnOfTheDead1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DawnOfTheDead1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 08:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries

Please stop using misleading edit summaries such as "copy edits" when you are make whole or partial reverts. You have been doing this for quite a long time and if you continue I will ask for comment from other editors. Thanks. BhaiSaab 17:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack?

CltFn, I looked at the text you indicated and I just can't see that as a personal attack. I don't consider myself warned; I consider myself puzzled. Zora 06:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

edit summaries

hello CltFn. if you make reverts or delete material, could you please indicate that in your edit summaries (and even better: justify it) especially when you are clearly aware that other editors may disagree with some of your contributions/removals? thank you. ITAQALLAH 12:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

So is this a recurring problem? Can I second this request and ask you not to just revert several good edits without so much as an explantion as you did here .PelleSmith 23:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Gabriel

I don't want to get in an edit war over this. I hope we can find common ground. I think it is clear that some of the material in her biography needs sourcing beyond her own words. The problem is the article expresses her anecdotes as fact while they may be true they need to be backed up with more then just her story. I support Israel completely but if you let a pro Israeli person have these kinds of unsupported anecdotes on their page then an anti Israeli figure can have unsupported anti-Israeli anecdotes on their page which to me is not a good thing. I am going to return the article to the shortened state. Please discuss how we can come to agreement on this, I am not "blanking" with an agenda. Daniel J. Leivick 01:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Islam in the United States

CltFn, I've looked over some of the discussion and edit history of the page and I now see that there seems to be an ongoing dispute between you and several other editors of the page regarding changes to the page structure and so on. Even if you have these issues with the page simply reverting changes wholesale to previous versions is not constructive. If the entry is to become better in terms of its factual accuracy and its structure, edits need to be dealt with individually. Personally I like to seperate different edits to make that easier--as I did. Now all I'm asking is for you to look at these edits seperately and to explain the problems with any of them, or else refrain from reverting them under some blanket revert to an older version. All i did was try to improve on the factual accuracy, the sentence and paragraph structure, and in one instance the NPOV of the article as it was when I saw it. Thanks.PelleSmith 16:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok well revert wars are rarely productive, and they frequently undermine the efforts of editors who are not part of them, because warring editors just keep on reverting to their own favorite versions instead of taking into account possibly good changes. Thank you for at least aknowledging that I had some good edits. Also simply reverting to a previous version is the lazy way of trying to accomplish something like keeping NPOV. If an editor is not willing to take the time to understand the edits of others before acting upon them then maybe they don't have the time to edit on that page. Lets not undermine the project of wikipedia because of a squabble.PelleSmith 12:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You are involved in a request for comment. BhaiSaab 20:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Image sourcing

You have stopped sourcing the images again. Most of them are not your own scans and for the screenshots--you don't mention what they are from... and they don't appear to be clean DVD captures... you have to source your stuff. We've been over this many times. Please go back and do that for all of your new uploads... it should be a matter of habit by now. gren グレン 09:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine that you take them from divx rips you have (I think). And, that's what I figured... but, you have to put it on the page since everyone needs to know--just not me. No harm done, just wanted to make sure you didn't forget :) --gren グレン 06:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiIslam

Hi CltFn. It great to see that you are still doing a lot of much needed work around here! Please keep up the good work.

One thing that I thought that I would mention to you, is this new project that is using the Wikimedia software: http://www.wikiislam.org/index.php/Main_Page . Hopefully the project will grow and expand and become a great source of information regarding Islam in the near future. I don't know if you have noticed it already, and I don't know of you are interested in something like that, but still I thought I would just let you know about it. -- Karl Meier 18:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources for Criticism of the Quran

Could you comment here? Arrow740 13:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Your note on my user talk page re the RFC

Thanks for posting the note to my user talk page. I have added to my comments in the RfC, based on the change you made in your response section; I hope that is satisfactory. John Broughton | Talk 17:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD appropriateness

The AfD was archived by User:Mackensen. Once an AfD is archived it is generally not to be edited. I suggest you contact User:Mackensen about adding a count to the archive. (→Netscott) 04:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please respond at Talk:Islam in the United States

I'm not sure about your recent addition to the entry, however I have not reverted it. Please respond to the comment on the talk page. Thanks.PelleSmith 03:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I have reverted sections of the addition that were false (see below) and/or that in accordance with the wikilinks and the reference showed no connection to Islam.PelleSmith 03:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I also implore you to either read your sources a bit better OR to refrain from willfully putting up false information in the entry which ever one of the two it was you did here, when you wrote "To date over 168 Muslims in the US have been charged since Sept. 11, 2001, in connection with terrorism or terrorism-related investigations". We will all benefit from a little more care taken in editing. Thanks.PelleSmith 03:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Answering-Islam.org

Do you know what happened to the article about that? Arrow740 05:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Islam writers

You should put it up for CfD if you're going to remove it from articles. If it's not deleted someone can just re-add it when they want. I am not going to put it up for CfD because I would inevitably bring it into a debate on Critics of Islam too which I think is far too vague to have any meaning as a category. gren グレン 13:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you stop trying to remove Scientology from the list?

CltFn, why do you keep on trying to remove the stat about Scientology from the CBS survey data you put innto the Islam in the United States page a while ago? And I'm not asking about the video, i'd rather stay clear of that debate. But its annoying when you keep on removing the Scientology figure. Its part of the survey data. Don't remove it again please. Have a good one.PelleSmith 17:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

deletion sorting

Personally I find Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam incredibly useful. Votestalking can take place in any manner. If there is not a centralized place, those who want certain articles deleted will still communicate with each other. But I won't be "in the know." With this system, which User:Itaqallah is so fond of using, I am able to watchlist this single page and learn what's going on the same way that others do. I suggest that we make the deletion sorting page better known instead of deleting it, you know, tell your friends. — coelacan talk — 20:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I have also found the list useful at times though yes I felt it may be used for vote stacking but I've found it seldom works because genuine votes end up there no matter what. What we have to do is get ourselves involved more in the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam so its a place that doesnt seem to be dominated one side (right now it is). I'm trying to correct that. Can you guys believe the List of former Muslims was taken out of the project's page by two old timers from the project? This is what we are up against. Visit this project's page right now: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam. Do you feel its dominated by one side? I do and I'm going to change this. This is very important. Like they have used this project to organize their activities, we should too. The project is to be a page and resource for organization of action by everyone equally. It can be a great resource for us once we iron it down and make it more NPOV and friendlier to ourselves. Once thats done, this will be a major help for us. I've formed a new taskforce for improving articles critical of Islam. See we have to sense what we have to do and how to organize our activities so we can improve articles critical of Islam. We're not pushing any NPOV, we're just wanting to make articles better just as everyone else is. You're all welcome to come and attempt to improve the project's page and make it more NPOV. --Matt57 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The "46 Lessons" on your userpage

I just wanted to comment, I read through those, and such intriguing and thought-provoking questions and ideas are a rare find. Thanks for posting those up! :) --Kuzaar 19:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks , but of course the credit goes to Irshad Manji--CltFn 17:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

John Esposito

A response to your recent comment on my talk page. You wrote:

John Esposito, heads the International Affairs and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University which is a recipient of a $20,000,000 endowment from Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal of Saudi Arabia . He has clear ties to Saudi lobbying interests and this should be mentioned to put his criticism of Bat Ye'or in the proper context.

As regards to your veiled threats "If you are going to proceed in this manner something has to be done about it", this could be construed to be a borderline violation of Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks.--CltFn 15:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Response:

"Could be" construed to be a "borderline" violation ... seriously? Is that how you are going to respond to an insistance that you refrain from consciously adding false information about John Esposito to wiki entries? You know as well as I do that "something has to be done about it" does not qualify as a personal attack. You also know as well as anyone that John Esposito is himself not a recipient of these funds. We have gone over this several times, and I have even mentioned it in the recent RFC about your editing. How much more clearly can this be outlined? How much more obvious can it be that you are disregarding this fact and consciously adding missinformation about Esposito to wiki entries? Esposito runs an institute at Georgetown University. A Saudi Prince gave this institute and Georgetown University a very sizable donation. Stop claiming that Esposito is the recipient of the this money. It is FALSE.PelleSmith 15:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

See above in regards to the history of this problem.PelleSmith 15:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finally making the statement accurate.PelleSmith 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or, not a historian

In modern day usage the term historian is primarily used in academia. It is not neutral to refer to her as a "historian". (→Netscott) 17:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You've got no consesus for your highly non-neutral utilization of that term for her. You can be sure that not only will I be reverting such wording but others will as well. (→Netscott) 17:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I provided mainstream dictionaries definitions of historian and I provided notable references of Bat Ye'or being described as a historian. Can you provide a notable reference beyond an opinion that would support your assertion ?--CltFn 17:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair warning: You are likely about to be blocked for a very long time. See this report. (→Netscott) 19:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting response to a simple request for a notable reference to support your assertion. --CltFn 17:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Esposito

Please take this to the Bat Ye'Or talk page, this isn't something that's negotiated in private. --Lee Hunter 17:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

To what are you referring? My pressure on CltFn to stop missrepresenting Esposito's connection to Saudi funding (which is a long standing problem)? Why do we have to discuss that on the Bat Ye'or talk page? It looks like the issue there is with the relevance of the information in the first place. My concern isn't with this relevane issue to Bat Ye'or but with the missrepresentation of Esposito's connection to Saudi funding. I think this is the most appropriate page to discuss the matter.PelleSmith 22:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

may i ask why you deleted my contribution to Brigette gabriel -unsigned commment by user Zlaja89 --

Because they were unsourced , OR --CltFn 17:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on December 21 2006 to Bat Ye'or

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 48 hours.

Please mark your reverts as such in future - use "rv" in the edit summaries. If you are in doubt as to what is a revert, pease read WP:REVERT.

William M. Connolley 20:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've extended this block to indefinite per Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Community_ban_for_CltFn. Dmcdevit·t 10:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you doing this DmCdevitt??, I discussed by edits on the talk page of the article in question here.

I requested page protection of the article here

I offered compromises to my edits and added references as requested. Did you actually look at my edits carefully to establish what actually was going on on the page before making such a drastic decision as to block me indef? Look at the Bat Ye'or edit history page

Have you checked the value of my contributions to wikipedia against the alleged disputes I have been involved with?

--CltFn 17:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Conditional unblock?

I'm considering unblocking you, but it would be conditional on something like 1/7R, strict civility and extensive use of talk pages for controversial edits.

But I can't quite see why you would prefer that to simply getting a new account; if you stuck to the above, you'd be in no trouble.

Reply here.

William M. Connolley 19:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks William Connolley. I accept the terms you propose; ie 1/7R, strict civility and extensive use of talk pages for controversial edits. As far as a new account, I did not know there was such an option but in any case I would prefer to continue editing as CltFn even if it is somewhat a more challenging road for now.--CltFn 00:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

OK William M. Connolley 13:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh - also: this section needs to stay on your talk page; and (I presume this must be obvious) this is your last chance William M. Connolley 13:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

OK agreed.--CltFn 13:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Accusations are not helpful

Insinuating that the many editors who don't agree with some of your edits on Islam in the United States are sockpuppets, is not exactly the best way to kick off the new you. That article needs alot of work, lets try to go at it productively.PelleSmith 23:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No disrespect but I have stated what I observed and note that I said in the comment "suspect". However you have a point , it does not help the discussion very much and so I shall avoid making such comments outside of the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard‎. --CltFn 16:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Islam in the United States

Dear CltFn: What is our goal of your editing of the Islam in the United States article? I'm just trying to understand what you are trying to accomplish. Look forward to your answer. Thanks,--Getaway 22:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The goal as in all wikipedia articles is to produce an accurate and helpful article that is balanced and verifiable.--CltFn 00:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Response concerning Islam in U.S.

re:Dear CltFn: What is our goal of your editing of the Islam in the United States article? I'm just trying to understand what you are trying to accomplish. Look forward to your answer. Thanks,--Getaway 22:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The goal as in all wikipedia articles is to produce an accurate and helpful article that is balanced and verifiable.--CltFn 00:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That is an admirable goal, but that is not what I'm trying to understand. What is the issue involved in your current debate on the talk page. I don't understand the issues. I've read the comments but I can't figure it out. Please outline the issue in the simplest terms possible for numbskull like me. Thanks,--Getaway 00:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as the ongoing debate , I am simply trying to add the links to the videos that substantiate the following statement.

The public displays of fringe Muslim groups like the Islamic Thinkers Society in New York City have served to project negative images of disaffection not representative of the wider Muslim community in the eyes of witnesses.

Video of Muslims in the US pledging disloyalty and desecrating of the US Flag
Video of Muslims promising a holocaust for the US.

--CltFn 00:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AfD

I have nominated most of spencer's book for deletion. --Aminz 13:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems odd to nominate Robert Spencer's books since they are quite notable and controversial and have gotten extensive media coverage.--CltFn 13:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:VictorDavisHanson.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Slowking Man 12:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

using accurate edit summaries

if you are going to revert, as you did on Undercover Mosque , then you should label it as such. furthermore, you restored the disputed version and removed the POV tag from the section despite there currently being a dispute over that formulation (which is why i proposed a superior alternative). i believe you are also misusing fair use images, as they become usable only under fair use criteria. that means the images are to be used for "identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents," whereas they are not commentated upon nor analysed in the text and serve as little more than decoration. ITAQALLAH 05:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The images are used under fair use as They are commented on throughout the article , but of course you just deleted the section where they were commented on. I had restored a cited version of the contents , meaning that each statement is sourced and verifiably referenced. --CltFn 05:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

the first image is used for identification of the documentary. the rest of the images are not discussed or analysed in the text, which is what is meant by critical commentary. as for the contents, restoring a biased version (and removing the POV tag) whilst adding cites for the quotes (it's not the quotes that are disputed) doesn't resolve the issue. my proposition allows for clear cut attribution, you can add all the quotes you like in the boxes. ITAQALLAH 05:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Then restore the quotes and the POV tag if you wish. As for the images I will add images that specifically referenced in the text then.--CltFn 05:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Now there's an anon editor (possibly Itaqallah sockpuppet, but that's just a guess) reverting the article over and over. A2Kafir 04:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes , I noticed.--CltFn 04:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

sorry, but it's not me. you're not doing much better, are you, A2Kafir? why don't you address my concerns on the talk page before reverting? ITAQALLAH 17:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

CltFn, please do not restore a skewed, cherry-picking contents section. insert all the quotes you like without adding commentary of it. this suggestion was best utilized in my proposal; all that was required was the insertion of more quotes reported by secondary sources. and please do not remove POV tags while the neutrality is disputed. ITAQALLAH 17:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again , I will repeat , because the topic is controversial I have ensured that every part of the contents section is fully referenced per Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, Misplaced Pages:Notability and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources including Islamic sources for fairness and balance. --CltFn 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

yet you do not see how, despite your sourcing of the quotes, your editorial commentary violates WP:NPOV. ITAQALLAH 12:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Its not "my" editorial commentary , the editorial commentary commes from the referenced articles.--CltFn 22:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:AnnCoulterNY.jpg)

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

Image:IslamicRevolutionStamp.jpg

Source, man, source. Saying what it is is not saying from where you got it. gren グレン 17:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Done--CltFn 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:David Horowitz.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:David Horowitz.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

Orphaned fair use image (Image:AnnCoulterNY.jpg)

List of founders of world religions‎;

Regarding Scientology, there is discussion already in progress on the talk page. (which I mentionned in my edit summary). If a (potentially) minor religion such as Scientology were to be included, then many many other groups would have to be included as well, which is why it is vital to ascertain that Scientology has a substantial following. Sfacets 23:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the records at adherants.com http://www.adherents.com/Na/i_s.html the numbers seem to fluctuate between 11,310 and 8 million. So there s a huge discrepancy between the numbers shown and the records from which they supposedly got the information. Another source would be needed to back any figure, as it is obviously subject to some controversy. Sfacets 00:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Irshad Manji

Hello, I left a message after your comments there -- not sure if you saw them. I am not sure of the best way of handling this. BrainyBabe 17:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AnMSign.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AnMSign.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 04:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Manifesto

Misplaced Pages cannot use copyrighted text verbatim unless it is in the public domain. The MANIFESTO is currently not in any public domain.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a copyright issue. You need to show that it has no copyright.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all its a manifesto , and inherently designed for mass consumption. Furthermore it is publisheable under fair use.--CltFn 03:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use is not the same as public domain—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the following:

6. Are my beliefs passionately moderate, humane, and open to evolution?
8. Being tolerant of intolerance is something that doesn't make sense.
10. Blast away at the hardened slag that suffocates religion in order to reveal its golden, beating core.
15. Dogma compels us to cling. Faith frees us to explore.
17. Every issue must be debated. Every last one.
18. Faith is not threatened by dissent. Dogma, on the other hand, is.
22. Is optimism a lack of information, and pessimism a lack of imagination?
23. Is unswerving belief in scientific supremacy an orthodoxy unto itself?
24. It's better to speak the truth, no matter how much it may hurt, than to remain silent about it.
29. Love all creatures because of the One who created them.
30. Moralistic, legalistic religion which emphasizes external conformity and blind following betrays its own highest aspirations.
31. Prayer is about thanks, not about endless traditions.
34. Religion is about how (well) we treat our fellow human beings.
35. Religion often sees God as an answer. Spirituality sees God as a question.
39. Thanks to religion - or my rebellion against it - I learned to distinguish between authority (eg. one's conscience) and authoritarianism (one's clerics).
40. The "Straight Path" is also exceptionally wide.
44. What is a religion if not the actions of those who practice it?

Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 23:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say to explain "why", but I'll do it anyway =)

6. I disagree with being "moderate" on some issues. I believe that Aristotle also faced the same problem when some of his critics said "Moderation in everything, including moderation itself". Or for instance, "I'll do murders in moderation, say, only twice a year". And so forth.
8. I think that it depends on the motivations of why the intolerance is there; and also to a lesser extent the harmfulness of the intolerance.
10. I don't think religion has a golden core. On the contrary, I think that religion is rotten to the core.
15. Faith encourages delusion, not exploration.
17. There are some axioms of logic that must be presupposed.
18. Faith is definitely threatened by dissent. Once someone says, "Hey, your illogical and irrational faith is bullshit, and here's why", that definitely threatens it.
22. No.
23. See 17
24. It depends on the subject. I'm definitely not telling the truth to girls I meet about what I fantasize if they ask me.
29. God is Santa Claus for grownups.
30. No, because those ARE its aspirations.
31. Prayer is about thanking God for not making your life total shit instead of just partial shit. It's also a crutch for weaklings. (Problem of evil)
34. No, religion is about how we can rationalize killing other people due to a divine cause.
35. Rationality sees God as a waste of time.
39. The ethical theory of conscience is widely contested.
40. No, there is only one correct path, and that is utilitarianism.
44. A religion is what it is. Not its followers.

--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 01:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime, though I try to avoid discussing religion, or asking after the views of others, I am now completely confused: how do you square all this with your professed belief in what is typically considered the theistic religion of Islam?Proabivouac 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytine, your explanations are interesting and I see that you are adept at exploring the linguistic ambiguities of some of the tenets I presented. I cannot say that I disagree with your point of view, but this may just be a case of you say tomato and I say its open season--CltFn 01:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a former Muslim. I'm an atheist now. But I still think that most anti-Islam is stupid Christian rhetoric of pot calling kettle black. Also, that video sucks. I got a better video:

enjoy =) --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Open Season (Stuck Mojo Song)

Please tell me where the lyrics to this song are released into the public domain. This should be noted on the article's talk page as well. Thank you. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

here --CltFn 03:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see any statement releasing the composition into the public domain. Giving away a recording of the song does not release the words and the music into the public domain. Unless there's a clear statement by the copyright holder releasing the composition itself, the lyrics cannot appear on Misplaced Pages. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"The tracks on our new record, "Southern Born Killers," will be posted at www.StuckMojo.us, as well as all over the internet for you to download, FOR FREE! You read that right! Download the songs, share them with your friends and, if you like what you hear, let potential new fans know where they too can get the songs for free."

Its not copyvio at this stage when the songs are released like this.--CltFn 04:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)