Misplaced Pages

User talk:ColScott

I think you may not have meant to revert Fire Star's last. Hesperian 05:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, of course not. Sorry.Proabivouac 05:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request possible collateral damage

Is there a reason for removing the declined unblock request from User talk:ColScott that I missed? Would you mind if I put it back in? Regards, --Fire Star 火星 05:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Just an error. Restore it, please.Proabivouac 05:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought. And you beat me to it! Cheers, --Fire Star 火星 05:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

admin's board

Proabivouac, you are right when you write that this article should be created and the expression "apes and pigs" would deserve to be described... but if this is treated a neutral way with reliable secondary sources for each pov introduced
Given the high controversy around that expression that could make people think Coran is antisemite (which remains a minority and controversial view) it is important the work is done perfectly immediately.
So, maybe Zeq could start the article in his own space and when he will have gathered all these information, he could discuss with other contributors about the work and introduce this in the encyclopedia space.
what do you think ?
Alithien 08:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Oppose Vote

In that situation, there was folks blanking everything in an article, whether it was contentious or not. For example, in the discussion that you linked to, a list of wrestlers that a fairly famous wrestling personality managed. T I was just trying to get clarity in a situation that required it regarding the word contentious. I discussed the case with User:Jossi here and as I said there, I have no problem with BLP being enforced the way it is, I just wanted the policy clarified so the next person in such a discussion does not find themselves in the same situation. BLP is one of the core tenets that Misplaced Pages rests on. I do not oppose it in any way, shape, or form. SirFozzie 12:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it with a fresh eye, I agree with you. Undiscerning it was of me not to see that. Thank you for responding.Proabivouac 14:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. Glad I could alleviate your concerns :) SirFozzie 14:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I am too, you're a great candidate. I feel a moral obligation to be the squeaky wheel, but in this case I squoke too soon.Proabivouac 14:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

seeking another opinion

i have removed these comments from Talk:Muhammad as they appear rather inappropriate and trollish (the second of which i find especially disruptive - the user has been reprimanded for this behaviour previously). they have recently been restored by Frotz; i would like your opinion on the matter. ITAQALLAH 05:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Good call, I think - the appearance of the second speaks to the utility of removing borderline instances such as the first - but as Frotz restored it (bad call, sorry, Frotz) and Merzbow's decided to rebut it instead, I've followed him; no sense fighting two good editors over this. This whole section ("Picture of Mohammad PBUH") was trollbait to begin with. Hell, this whole talk page, for as long as I can remember…Proabivouac 07:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, what do you think about userboxes like this: , ? ITAQALLAH 22:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Need you ask? It's a no-brainer: they should go. I've nominated both for deletion.Proabivouac 01:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

could you step in on the current dispute on Talk:Islam? it looks like we've hit a brick wall. thank you. ITAQALLAH 00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Which one, the one about jihad/slavery?Proabivouac 00:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

yeah... the cessation section. thanks ITAQALLAH 00:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:AlbertBrown80

I'm aware of all the issues, but since he was engaging in dialogue I was/am willing to give him a chance. If he were to abuse this offer, he would find himself on a very long vacation. Whether there's a relationship of any sort between him and any other user - I have no idea. FunnyPop12 hasn't edited since March - I don't know if he's still blocked. AlbertBrown80 can resume disruptive editing if he prefers that to dialogue, but given his history this is likely to result in quite long blocks - which'll be permanent soon enough if he doesn't straighten up and fly right. He's under a three week right now - we'll see what happens. WilyD 17:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

It looks like my Request for Admin has closed successfully at (58/8/2). Your support is a thing I'm very grateful for. I appreciate you asking me to clarify that section, because most people would have just let it stay, and who knows how it would have turned out then! :D I consider it my duty to try to live up to the trust that you and others have shown in me SirFozzie 18:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad to see that you've passed.Proabivouac 01:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Why ?

Friend, why you are doing that. I am not going to start voting there again. What you will like to accomplish there. I deleted the contents myself what else you what? You will feel happy to delete it then okay. Have fun! I though you are a very good person but ... -:) --- A. L. M. 09:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, why did you recreate the page? You can't well blame me for asking that question. What I'd like to see - and I'm obviously not alone - is for you to move onto to some other topic(s). Misplaced Pages will have depictions of Muhammad. The good news is, you're still welcome to contribute. People like you, ALM - that's why you've not been blocked or banned for all this disruption, and why hardly anyone has suggested this. Please don't force the community's hand.Proabivouac 09:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not care if they dislike or like me. I really do not care. I know you have been collecting evidence (some fake some real) about me since a while. I do not care at all. I might even do not reply in RFC or arbitration case that you might file sometime soon. I only care to be liked by myself by maintaining good standards and rules of Islam (not to lie, be nice with people and try not to hurt them, not to achieve what I wish to achieve using wrong ways, ...). I am careless about others liking or disliking. You know I never ever created a socket puppet even though I really wish to delete those pictures. Not because I am afraid of wikipedia rule but I do not wish to defame my religion. It tell me not to use wrong ways to achieve even good things. --- A. L. M. 09:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Rules of Islam. Arrow740 09:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

ALM, I've not assembled any portfolio on you; the thing I copied before was just AMC's list of image reverts. I detest RfC's and ArbCom cases; why would I open one? It's you that's been talking about this for what seems like months now - total projection for you to suspect others of preparing an ArbCom case.

As for religions and our personal actions…well, I don't have sockpuppets either; neither do most editors in this space, of any religion. Do you expect some special prize for being Muslim, but not being bannably disruptive? I agree with you that the most effective evangelism is setting an admirable example. Several other editors have set very poor examples, and have wound up embarrassing whoever they agreed with.Proabivouac 09:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

AMC's list of image reverts was not alone you also have some other for example . Anyway, I should now concentrate on work. bye and Good luck. --- A. L. M. 10:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

So it looks like the rules of Islam include Bin Laden style murder, apki nazron mein. Arrow740 10:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just explaining what (long ago) had upset me, because you'd expressed puzzlement and asked what it was. Not a preparation for any kind of action at all. I understand why you'd be suspicious, though. ArbCom has a history of zooming in on this kind of thing and ignoring the overall situation. I'm not a part of that - if I had any dispute with you, it's only that you continue beating the dead image horse, and that's all (supposing you'd brought the case) I'd bring up.Proabivouac 10:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Religious languages

Before you re-remove Adamic language and Reformed Egyptian from Category:Religious language, the category needs to be defined. No where in its definition is it stated whether it covers religious words, actual whole languages or even whole languages believed by a religion to have exist or existed or all of the above. Don't whittle down the category unless you are sure you are working within a defined parameter agreed to by consensus on the category talk page. Thanks.

PS: Lose your paranoia about wikistalking. I can't help it if you edited 3 pages on my watchlist, can I? I would have performed the edits regardless of the editor.

-SESmith 10:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Religious language presumes that an actual language is involved. If not, it doesn't belong in that category. Please do not add or restore misinformation to Misplaced Pages.Proabivouac 10:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you'd like to present that presumption as a definition for the category, go ahead. But you cannot assume that that's what the category means just because you believe it. At this point, you believe it is misinformation because you have a definition in mind which no one else has agreed to explicitly in WP. And please do not accuse me of being a "crank". I'm making good faith efforts to resolve the "dispute" using WP methods of reaching consensus on definitions. -SESmith 10:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, "language" means "language." So let's straighten up and fly right here: if something isn't accepted as a language by reliable sources, then we've no business assigning it to this class.Proabivouac 10:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there are "imaginary" languages, "real" languages, "religious" languages—for the latter, some (reliable sources) believe such languages existed and some reject this. It's not just a black and white issue. Go to discuss at talk page for the category. I'm making no attempt to deceive or mislead—I'm merely pointing out that things might be more fuzzy than you assume from others' points of view. –SESmith 11:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No academic scholar will accept any of these as languages. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of popular misconceptions, much less unpopular ones.Proabivouac 11:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

They don't assert themselves as languages amenable to academic study in the pure sense that you would "study" French or Bengali. They are religious concepts by nature. You can find academic scholars in religious studies who take both very seriously, if you care to look (I assume you haven't). Popularity is not the measure of whether or not a topic is serious or not—I'm not sure what you are getting at using the argument of popularity. (If you're trying to take digs at Mormonism, you should know that I do not claim to be a Latter-day Saint, so you may be preaching to the choir.) If religious beliefs are "misconceptions" to you, that is your POV, but you cannot foist it upon all of WP without a consensus on what a category means. I've started the discussion page there to get opinions on what the category means. If the consensus is to remove them then another category may well be started for these theorized religious languages. I'm not against such a change. All I ask is that it be discussed first and consensus reached. :) –SESmith 11:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hallo, Could you please have a look at this. Cheers, Str1977 08:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll do so shortly.Proabivouac 00:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you will help

I support adding one non-Muslim image in place of one Muslim image so that number of images remain same in the article. Adding Muhammad showing nude I can never support. I hope being a fair person you will support me this time. Right? --- A. L. M. 08:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought you would object to the disemboweled part. Arrow740 08:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740 why you are like that? Do you feel good to see us in pain? --- A. L. M. 08:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just saying that the nude part is really the least of your problems with it. I think for an objective encyclopedia an artist's rendition like that is a good addition. I won't be too upset if it gets removed, though. In response to the last part, I would just say that mental pain is often a choice and I don't see why you would be in pain over something that doesn't do anything. Arrow740 08:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The number of depictions was five by the conclusion of mediation; it is now four because the United States Supreme Court image was removed for some reason. I prefer that one to this one, were it my choice. The Blake image is both notable and topical, you can't deny that, but I do admit that I'm a little uncomfortable with it, just as I'm uncomfortable with the appearance of arbitrary censorship. I'd propose bringing the Court image back, under the reformer section.Proabivouac 08:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be much better. Arrow740 08:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That image does not belong to the article. I think no explaination is required that why it is offensive. --- A. L. M. 09:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's everyone calm down and discuss this on the talk page.Proabivouac 09:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

H

Drop it. Your continual harping on the topic is not going to make anything better.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 09:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidently, I'm not convinced of that. The expression of strong community sentiment against Misplaced Pages-enabled harassment is valuable both in utility and in principle. The argument for dealing with this through back-channels (to the extent that it was stated on wiki at all) was that the disclosure of personal details and harassment would stop. It didn't. At this point we should be examining further options, such as those (flawed but with some worthy elements) put forth by Hypnosadist. Generally, administrators should not be allowed to unblock users who were blocked for personal attacks and harassment against real world identities without some very concrete reassurances that they won't continue, and should be required to aggressively block or otherwise thwart users engaging in this behavior.

I emphatically do not agree with the unstated premise that the loss of H is an acceptable one, which we should write off and "move on." See also User:Tom harrison.Proabivouac 09:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:Ryulong#Drop it. There's nothing else I can say to either of you in this situation, and my reply there sums up whatever you bring up here.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 09:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because you think editors should be fed to the wolves Ryulong, does not mean others have your lack of caring. 10:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Pro how do youlike the new sig in honor of H. 10:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I DO NOT SUPPORT WHAT HAPPENED IN ANYWAY. I just think that the thread had gotten out of hand.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜) 10:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I can relate to that feeling; it happens to me all the time. If you can accept that others disagree, and that we don't archive without consensus (first attempts are exempt naturally per WP:BOLD), then there's nothing to dispute.Proabivouac 10:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Constitution of Medina

Please comment on this series of edits from Aminz: . Arrow740 08:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I hadn't had a chance to look at this yet.Proabivouac 00:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

His excellency

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg 23:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you want to prove?

Asma Barlas has edited "Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an" so she is an scholar of Islam. As I said on that talk page, the book you call unreliable is reviewed by Kirsten V. Walles, Department of History, University of Texas at Austin as "the book Believing is a fascinating analysis of the woman’s position in Muslim society.However the basic premise of Asma Barlas’s theories could be applied and used by scholars of many disciplines including religion, gender, and history.." John Esposito reviewed the book saying: "This is an original and, at times, groundbreaking piece of scholarship."

Where is the spirit of truth? --Aminz 09:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

She isn't an RS for everything. Arrow740 09:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Barlas debate? There is no "debate". The matter is so clear. --Aminz 09:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you trying to say?Proabivouac 09:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Arrow lied about me: "As Aminz has indicated, the people she is referring to are not notable in this area,". And you supported him . --Aminz 09:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The people you indicated that she was referring to are not notable. I thought that your presentation needed no elaboration to reach that conclusion, I guess I was wrong. Arrow740 09:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't "support" anyone "l about you," I only said that the edit didn't appear to be vandalism.Proabivouac 09:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

To Arrow: I didn't indicate that they were not reliable. I don't have to read the mind of Barlas and name you the Muslims she knows in order to prove that she is right. Now, when I did named Maulana Muhammad Ali, Muqtedar Khan, Moiz Amjad and others as examples of some people who share that view, Proab said that it is Original Research to read the mind of Barlas.

Arrow, please don't tell lie about me from now on.

To Proabivouac: Your removal of all material sourced to Barlas in support of Arrow's lie about me- whatever... it is past --Aminz 09:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Barlas is a reliable source for some of the material sourced to her. Pro had read the talk page, I assume he knew what I meant. The fact remains that her qualifications in this area are very limited. There is a reason why only sources such as her spout this material. Arrow740 09:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Children

Regrding this edit, it is important to stress that every child whether born to a Muslim or a non-Muslim family is born Muslim. The natural reaction of most people is that children are born without religion, but are later introduced into it. Also, when you removed, "like the entire humanity", the sentecne stopped making sense where it was, because the statement on the mankind (which was also "born Muslim") was in the previous sentence. Islam is the natural state of affairs whether for a person, for the mankind, or for the entire universe. Animals, planets, stars are also Muslim, for that matter. Beit Or 21:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you were trying to say. "Like the entire humanity" is ungrammatical, and your intention wasn't clear.Proabivouac 21:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is it ungrammatical? Beit Or 22:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Like "mankind", "humanity" doesn't take a definite article (nor does "Islamic law," unless you are talking about one Islamic law in particular.) Additionally, "entire" is not a valid modifier of "humanity" - one might say "the entirety of humanity," or better still, "all humanity" or "humanity as a whole."Proabivouac 22:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The word "entire" always requires a definite article before it. However, I accept your argument on its appropriateness as a modifier in this case. Beit Or 22:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, it only occurs with an article or demonstrative; therefore a word which cannot usually appear with these cannot be modified by "entire." In fact, mass nouns and plurals generally can't take "entire": "the entire water", "the entire zoo animals," etc., unless there's some context in which they're discreet, e.g. "Did you drink the entire water that was in the nightstand?" Similarly with nouns which take the definite article only in a discreet context: "Is the entire electricity off, or just in that one room?" Along another line: "Did you eat both those entire hamburgers?" Still, these counterexamples might be rejected as formally ungrammatical by many speakers.Proabivouac 23:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, could you please address my attempted copyedit. thanks. ITAQALLAH 22:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, i don't wish to get involved in what's currently occuring, but surely you will agree that this completely undiscussed insertion, timed to coincide with the main page appearance, heavily skews the section in question. ITAQALLAH 03:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The hadith says that every child is born a Muslims. But the parents make him Christian, Jew... or Muslim. The first Muslim is used in a different sense and it implies something else. I don't know what all these details have to do with that section. --Aminz 04:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, I completely agree. I hadn't actually meant to revert Aminz, just Agoras, but I had gone off to check the Teece figures - Agoras was correct on that point. Now, Aminz, in your reverts, you have also reverted for Agoras.Proabivouac 04:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sock of banned user?

Of the editors at Islam, who do you think is a sock of a banned user, of whom do you think he/she is a sock? -- tariqabjotu 05:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, due to his short edit-history and disruptive edit pattern, I'd assumed this to be a sleeper sock of User:His excellency, who, as you may be aware, has been extremely active lately. However, looking through contribs from March, perhaps this is not the case. It's unfortunate that there has been so much sock disruption over the past week (especially) that this is the first assumption that comes to mind. Though Agoras' edits here were palpably disruptive, perhaps I owe him/her an apology.Proabivouac 05:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)