| Revision as of 00:31, 21 November 2006 editJayjg (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 edits Johnson← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 09:57, 11 March 2024 edit undoSpinixster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,213 edits Isaac listed for good article reassessment (GAR-helper) | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{not around|date=December 22, 2008}} | |||
| == Your note == | |||
| {{busy|] (])}} | |||
| ==Fair use rationale for Image:Profwatt.jpg== | |||
| Hi Aminz, I'll take a look, but I don't think I'll be able to help as I really don't know enough about the subject. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| :There ''are'' no other friendly editors like me, Aminz. I am unique. ;-D | |||
| Thanks for uploading or contributing to ]. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no ] as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the ], you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found ]. | |||
| :Okay, seriously, I'll think about it. I have one or two in mind that I can ask. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Thanks for that, it was good to read! --]\<sup>]</sup> 11:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. | |||
| == Link == | |||
| 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 "]" 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you. <small>Do you want to ] of receiving this notice?</small><!-- Template:Missing rationale --> ] (]) 17:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you very much for the link. I read the article. Interestingly, I have the exact opinion of that person. But when I present Islam in front of anyone, I never put it as a religion but as an extension of human nature. For example, being humble to a supreme being and to consider other equal, being merciful and be kind to others and being honest is in our nature, the religious rituals stregnthens our nature in this regard. Even all rituals of religion have the same goal, and that is the realization of our nature and respecting it. And if goal seems to be different, I think we should question that practice. For example trimming nails, shaving armpit and pubic hair is evident from nature as every person is born with it, but it causes problems i.e. bad smell, health problems plus it doesn't suit to human's highest standards of aesthetics. In my basic study of Sharia (not to speak of fiqh), I couldn't find anything, which would go against nature but strengthens it to the highest degree. Thanks again for the article. Cheers! ]<sup>]</sup> 11:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :What do you think of ], as Encyclopedia of Islam and Muslim world by MacMillan reference considers it a dream, which was made physical journey later on, as Ibn Ishaq also considers it as a dream. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Moses:On hold== | |||
| :Well! my reply was connected to the article in the sense that changing religion is a huge concept, and eventually it changes your social life, as said in the article. I was just suggesting that people should be told that it is not the denomination (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) that is important, it is the concept. And the concept is to respect the nature, which the religion tells us. | |||
| Salam brother, | |||
| At present I'm reviewing ]. It has narrated the life of Moses on the basis of Bible, and I think we should pat attention to Qur'an too. Thus I asked to narrate Moses's life on the basis of Qur'an. I think Shia and sunni agree on it and we can use as a source. But please check it and help me with it.--<span style="font-family:monospace;">](]-])</span> 12:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You asked me about Geckos, interesting enough, I read about it a few days ago, and I think the following link has very good information about it. But even if the prophet asked for it, the reason would be very similar to killing a snake or scorpion, as it can kill or hurt you. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It would be failed.--<span style="font-family:monospace;">](]-])</span> 15:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Banu Nadir == | |||
| ::Gecko cant kill or hurt you! Not poisonous at all only superstition.] 10:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Stillman's assertion that "Huyayy B. Akhtab had gone from Khaybar with his son to join the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina" stands. Neither Watt nor any other scholar has said that there were any Banu Nadir troops in the army that participated in attacking the Muslim community. Quite the contrary, all sources on the detailed composition of the allied army at the Battle of the Trench confirm the absence of any Banu Nadir combatants. ] (]) 14:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Even if it cannot hurt you, the aspect of being uncleanliness is still there, but interesting enough, ], the closest wife says in one of the hadith that she is not even aware of this fact. {{Bukhari|3|29|57}} But ] can also be right, this can be a superstition in the Arabian society, but as Aisha was unaware, this mustn't be a part of the religion, but an opinion of the prophet as an elder of society. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Credible author== | |||
| Who is Hayath Khan? ]<sup>]</sup> 11:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the ] article but this ] seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in ]. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record. | |||
| :Oh sorry for not realizing. I think his concern was right to some extent. But I believe that a person doesn't become guilty, at least in front of God unless he faces the reality quite clearly and then rejects it just because of arrogance. And what Forward has in his mind, only God knows better. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus, so I will do the same. The Islamic connection here is, ]. He is FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. Can you help your fellow InternetHero?? ] (]) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| And yes, I am aware of his death. Sad! ]<sup>]</sup> 11:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==A article review:Battle of the Trench== | |||
| ::Just a comment on article ], it would be worthwhile to know the reason that why prophet asked to cut down four hundred trees after khyber. | |||
| Salam Brother, I nominated ] to be reviewed by "WikiProject Military history" reviewers I hope you can help me with it.--<span style="font-family:monospace;">](]-])</span> 06:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == how are you == | |||
| I would definitely support your proposal. But we should also tell that he had a very good taste about things as well. For example, he used to like the horse of best kind etc. Personally, I don't find these two qualities contradictory. As the first one tells us that we shouldn't use extravagantly and show off. The second one tells us that we should have a taste of things in life and not just a dry person with no emotions. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| thanks for editing ]. what are u doing these days. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ==New article you may want to edit== | |||
| Hello Aminz, I've started a new article about Saudi Arabia's first feature film: ]. I invite you to contribute to it if such an article might interest you. Thanks. :-) ''(]])'' 02:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Aminz, thanks for the response. I actually haven't seen the film myself. I've been gleaning information about it off of the internet and formulating the article that way. It's exciting to me to see Saudi Arabia enter into film making. :-) Take it easy. ''(]])'' 23:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == GA sweeps hold on ] == | |||
| ==Re: Muhammad quote removal == | |||
| As part of the GA sweeps the ] artcle has been reassessed and found to need some work. I have put it on hold for a week pending further edits. The review can be found ]. I identified you as the primary editor. I can be reached at my talk page if you have any questions. ] (]) 01:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| And? I'm not even looking at who adds or takes away quotes nor am I targetting any member specifically; I'm simply trying to make sure Watt's statements are represented accurately. —] 08:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == A note re: ] == | |||
| :Are you being serious? Have you even read the page the quote comes from? It in no way accurately represents the whole of Watt's statement. —] 08:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the ] ''(formerly Rorschach inkblot test)'' talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at ] or leave a note at ]; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at ]. Longer statements may be made ] or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made ]. Best regards, –]] 14:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Further to the above, we would appreciate if you could briefly take the time to place yourself below one of the suggested statements ]. If none of these statements represents your current position, please compose your own or simply sign "Not applicable" under "Other quick clarifications". Likewise sign as N/A if you do not want to participate further in this debate. If you choose not to respond then you will likely not be counted with respect to further consensus-determining efforts. –]] 14:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == GA Reassessment of ] == | |||
| ::A quote which attempts to paint the picture that Jews claimed something they did not, especially considering the author of the quote does not explicitely state they made such claims, should ''not'' be included as it is not accurate and just clouds the article. You cannot simply add a bunch of quotes to make an article. What you've been doing is the primary reason why this article was removed from the Good Articles list. —] 08:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have done the GA Reassessment of ] as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found a few items that concern me about the article. My review can be found ]. I have held the article for a week and I am notifying you as the primary editor in the hope that work can be done to keep it at GA. Please contact me at my talk page if you have any questions. ] (]) 16:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == source == | |||
| ==Unreferenced BLPs== | |||
| I'll try to find it and will let you know when I'll get one. Cheers! ]<sup>]</sup> 03:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] Hello AAA765! Thank you for your contributions. I am a ] alerting you that '''1''' of the articles that you created is tagged as an]. The ] policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure ], all biographies should be based on ]. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current '']'' article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{tl|unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article: | |||
| # ] - <small>{{findsources|Jere L. Bacharach}}</small> | |||
| :Can you please check your email.]<sup>]</sup> 16:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks!--] (]) 19:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ] nomination of ] == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for ]. The nominated article is ]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also ] and "]"). | |||
| Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to ]. Please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). | |||
| Aminz, there is often tag team reverting waring with quick reporting if you take the bait. Sometimes it can seem as if it is designed to anger you and thus discredit you -- it is best to avoid revert wars. --] 07:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :No, just discuss the issues on the talk page and aim to build ]. There is a great book called ] that you should read. You need to take a more sophisticated approach to Misplaced Pages. --] 07:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::You have to convince others of your points. Opiner is just one individual, talk to others on the talk page and aim to make friends by being nice to others. You should learn how to ] others as well -- during university I joined the debate team and learnt a lot about how arguments are made, and they are similar to Misplaced Pages discussion pages. --] 07:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the ] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. | |||
| == Warning all parties to stop the edit warring on ] == | |||
| '''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a ]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --] (]) 01:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Reach a consensus on the talk page or I will have no choice but to fully protect until you do - and this always happens to ]. Consider this effective immediately. ] 08:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==MfD nomination of ]== | |||
| ], a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> ] (]) 00:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==We're recruiting art lovers!== | |||
| :To be perfectly honest I really dont want to get involved in the dispute, my job is to protect '''all''' articles from the damage that comes for editors continually reverting each other. I suggest a ], or ] be filed if you cannot agree yourselves. Sorry, but Im just looking out for the best result for the article itself, and edit warring is not it ] 08:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {|style="background:#d5dceb; border:1px solid #6881b9; margin:0.5em; padding:0.5em;border-radius: 8px;" | |||
| == Request == | |||
| |- | |||
| Hi Tariqabjotu, | |||
| !colspan=2 style="font-size:150%;"|] Wikimedia Partnership - We need ''you!'' | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the Smithsonian ] and I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about art to participate in furthering art coverage on Misplaced Pages. I am planning contests and projects that will allow you access, no matter where you live, to the world's largest collection of archives related to American art. Please sign up to participate ], and I look forward to working with you! ] (]) 00:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| ==Invitation to workshops on editing Misplaced Pages== | |||
| There is a dispute over reliability of sources mentioned here . I think they are reliable but Opiner thinks they are not. I am trying to form a consensus. Would you please let me know what changes should be applied to this section so that you agree with its addition (to *reformer* section here or to some other article). Thanks very much. I would like to chat with editors individually and when a consensus is achieved, request them to comment on the talk page that they agree with the section. --] 22:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Dear AAA765, | |||
| We are a team of researchers at the ] and ], researching the experiences of editors of content about the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. We are interested in your experiences of editing Misplaced Pages and are organising two events that we think you would be an excellent contributor to. | |||
| :First, I think the inclusion of the full titles of sources (e.g. ''William Montgomery Watt, Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the Unviversity of Edinburgh'') in the text is unnecessary. If the credentials of the source needs to be mentioned (and due to the edit war and overall volatile nature of the ] article, they should), they can be placed in the footnotes. Additionally, I question the neutrality of the first paragraph at all because, although I'm sure these things were truly said by these sources, it appears to be a bit lopsided. I see a couple paragraphs essentially praising Muhammad for his treatment of animals (and even a statement that appears to denounce Christianity for it's anthropocentric views), but no contrary opinion. If I weren't too knowledgeable the subject (and, to be honest, I'm not), I'd want to know more about that contrary opinion, especially due to the last paragraph — | |||
| First, we are hosting an online wiki focus group about contributing to Misplaced Pages in Arabic and to articles about the Middle East and North Africa. We are interested in what barriers you perceive to exist in Misplaced Pages, how articles can be made better and generally what can be done to expand and improve Arabic Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages articles about the Arab world. This discussion will take place on a MediaWiki hosted at our institution and be available in English and Arabic. We will allow users to create their own discussion pages in addition to our discussions. | |||
| Second, we are hosting face-to-face workshops in ] from 21st-22nd October 2012. If you are interested in this we should be able to pay travel and accommodation costs for up to twenty participants. This workshop will cover similar themes to the online discussion but will allow participants to meet one another and benefit from being together. | |||
| We will take care of the organization and planning and all you have to do is show up and be ready to discuss. But if you would like to help shape some of the discussion themes in advance, please let us know. We have booked time in the workshops for Wikipedian-led discussions. | |||
| ::''However, in Muslim culture hyena, bat, gecko, snake, and other reptiles as well as insects are considered to be ugly, dangerous, vicious, but also powerful and often ambivalent. While scorpion is considered as an ebodiment of demons and evil spirits.'' | |||
| More details can be found by expanding our “Frequently Asked Questions” below. | |||
| : — which seems to get short-changed, drowned out by the positive analysis of Muhammad and Islam. I'm not sure what you mean when you say ''(to *reformer* section here or to some other article)'', but I must say that reading the current ''Reforms'' section, to me, is quite painful as it appears that you all tried too hard to make everything verifiable. The lengthy quotes and long titles of scholarly distinction really are unnecessary (or at least not in the body). | |||
| We would be delighted to welcome you to either (or both) event. Please let us know (wikiproject@oii.ox.ac.uk) if you would like the opportunity to participate and we can send you more details. | |||
| Sincerely, | |||
| Mark, Bernie, Ilhem, Ali, Ahmed, and Heather | |||
| :Your source from the professor at UC-Berkeley is okay (but not very good), unless there is contradictory evidence (in which case it would not be good at all). The professor appears to be an expert in engineering, a field far from Islamic and Near Eastern history, and so I would prefer a better source. But again, I don't see it as a significant issue. The second and third sources seem fine, and I really don't know much about the fourth source to say it's great (although the fact that it was published by an established publisher makes me optimistic). -- ''']''' 00:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Dr. Mark Graham, ], University of Oxford; | |||
| ==Admin== | |||
| Dr. Bernie Hogan, ], University of Oxford; | |||
| Did you put any request infront of any admin? ]<sup>]</sup> 09:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Dr. Ilhem Allagui, Department of Mass Communication, ]; | |||
| :What about ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Dr. Ali Frihida, National Engineering School of Tunis; | |||
| ::do it. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Heather Ford, ], University of Oxford; | |||
| Ahmed Medhat, ], University of Oxford; | |||
| {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" | |||
| Why youre asking only the Muslim administrators?] 09:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ! Frequently Asked Questions | |||
| |- | |||
| |* ''What is the purpose of this project?'' | |||
| : This project is about who represents the Arab World on Misplaced Pages, and how the Middle East and the Arab world is represented on Misplaced Pages. We are studying Misplaced Pages through statistics, edit history data and personal experiences. Our ultimate goal is to help Misplaced Pages grow in size and fairness and do academic research on this topic. You can read . From this page, you can also find a biography of the researchers. You may also want to see our . | |||
| * ''Who is funding this project?'' | |||
| : This project is funded by the ] (http://www.idrc.ca). This organization is funded by the Canadian government to improve infrastructure across the world, including online content. We have been working with the IDRC since June 2010. | |||
| * ''Why did you contact me?'' | |||
| : Because you’re awesome. In all seriousness, we have been looking through Misplaced Pages for active editors based on user activity in either Arabic Misplaced Pages or articles about the Arab world. We have not contacted everyone we could, but we contact people that we think will help to balance the discussion and help us (and each other) learn more about the state of Misplaced Pages. | |||
| * ''Do I need to participate in both events?'' | |||
| : Not at all. You are welcome to participate in both or just one. We recognise that it will be more convenient for some people to have online conversations and for others to speak in person. For some people it will not be practical to fly to the Middle East, but we still consider their contributions important and want to give them a voice in this work. | |||
| * ''Can I use my Misplaced Pages handle in the online discussion?'' | |||
| : You do not need to use any particular name on the online forum. All we need is a valid email address so you can register. You can post using your real name, your Misplaced Pages name or a completely different nickname, whatever allows you to speak your mind most effectively. | |||
| * ''What sort of travel funding will you supply for the face-to-face workshop?'' | |||
| : We have funding for travel and accommodation costs for approximately twenty participants depending on where they are coming from. If you would like to join us in one of the face-to-face meetings then we will do our best to get you there. The exact amount of support we can offer will depend on how many expressions of interest we get and their distance from the chosen venue. | |||
| * ''Can I get involved and help to organize sessions?'' | |||
| : Yes, but this is completely optional. Our first priority is organizing a space for people to attend, talk about Misplaced Pages, and discuss how to expand and improve it. However, if you want to help organize discussions, advise on venues or facilitate specific conversations, please let us know. | |||
| : The discussion we have already organised/planned will focus generally on barriers that people perceive to exist when editing Misplaced Pages either in Arabic or about topics related to the Arab world. But if there is any particular angle of conversation that you’d like to focus on and start a discussion about then please let us know and we can either incorporate it in the programme or let you lead that part of the conversation. | |||
| * ''Will the face-to-face meeting be public?'' | |||
| : The meeting won’t be open to the broader public in order to facilitate focused discussions about the topics of greatest concern. We will compile a summary research report of the discussions. People can choose how/if they want to be identified, and a draft version of this document will be circulated to everyone who participates. | |||
| * ''What if I don’t live in the Middle East or North Africa?'' | |||
| : We would still very much encourage you to participate in the online discussion. However, we think it is unlikely that we will be able to fly you in for the in person workshops. If you can pay your own way, we may still be able to provide you with hotel expenses. In short, talk to us and we will see what we can do. | |||
| * ''Will these events be in English or Arabic?'' | |||
| :Both events will be designed to accommodate English and Arabic speakers. The online discussion will have tracks for both languages and the workshops will have simultaneous English and Arabic sessions that you can choose between (as well as coming-together sessions to share experiences). Three of the researchers speak English as a first language and three speak Arabic as a first language. | |||
| |} | |||
| ] (]) 11:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC), tidied 11:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Duroav wasn't Muslim, Is Gren Muslim?? --] 09:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| The article ] has been ]  because of the following concern: | |||
| ==3RR Block== | |||
| :'''Only ] section has any content. Article title is unclear.''' | |||
| Right, I'm blocking you for breaking our ]. Reverting is not OK, no matter whether you believe you are right or not, no matter whether you believe others are putting false information onto Misplaced Pages and trying to disrupt it or not. The three revert rule stands as a reminder of that and we block because we want to stop serial reverters. Please when you return be more willing to use talk pages and follow our dispute resolution procedures if necessary. ] 12:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ]. | |||
| Robdurbar, I was in the middle of a dispute resolution process. I can explain the diffs. Opiner was asking editors to come and write against me. --] 12:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| According to this , I was right in removing POV tags. Please see, here , an admin agree that the whole section I was restoring was encyclopedic. If one removes an encyclopedic section, then that's simple vandalism and 3rr doesn't count. --] 12:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 01:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ''edit conflicted with the above'' | |||
| :Well getting other editors in is a perfectly acceptable thing to do (unless of course, he's doing it through personal malice; there's no reason why you can't do the same(see ] for when it is wrong to do this). Looking at your talk page, it does seem like you're working on this. I'm sorry it took so long to answer the 3RR report; they are usually delt with more quickly. | |||
| == Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library! == | |||
| :Given that it looks like you're trying to resolve this, I'm happy to unblock for now - but consider this a 'suspended' block as far as I'm concerned. As long as you stop reverting so much, I'm happy. --] 12:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {|style="background:#CEE3F6; border:1px solid #cee3f6; margin:0.5em; padding:0.5em;border-radius: 8px;" | |||
| ::Sure, I will not revert. If you could help us with dispute resolution, that would be great. --] 12:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::My IP address is still blocked. --] 12:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::But Aminz, what I want to press home to you is '''even where you are correct and other users are being disruptive''' rerverting more than a couple of times is not the way to do things. The three revert rule - and please make sure you've ] - is there to stop edit wars; when enforcing it, it is irrelevant who is 'correct' in any dispute. Yes you can remove a tag if you think its being used incorrectly; but if the user re-adds enough times and you keep on removing it, you will have violated the rule. --] 12:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, sorry, give me 1 minute :) --] 12:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What's your IP? The software only gives me the last few digits. --] 12:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::BTW, the 3rr policy says it does not apply to self-reverts, correcting simple vandalism. Removing big chunks of texts which are encyclopedic is simple vandalims, isn't it? --] 12:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks.--] 12:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Only if it is done with the aim to vandalise - if it is part of a content dispute, and the 'blanking' user believes that he is improving the article through it, then no. Anyway, the four diffs under which you broke the rule were removing the pov tag twice and removing a source (that you claimed was inadequte - maybe it was, I don't care, but that's the sort of thing you can bring to a talk page instead) twice. --] 12:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Just to clarify, the answer is definitely no, it is not vandalism. If the edits are made in good faith to improve the article then they definitely do not count. Read ] which states ''"While having large chunks of text you've written deleted, moved to the talk page, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism"'' Hope this helps ] 12:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Please put yourself in my shoes, you do lots of research and write something, then a persistent editor comes and removes it without any reason. Can you remain silent? --] 12:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: P.S. An admin agreed with me that the section was encyclopedic. --] 12:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I know it can be frustrating but its just the way its done. Remember that ] in getting it right here and, in the end, it is better to take an issue to a talk page if a revert has been reverted, rather than revert again, make your case and work with users. In the long run, it encourages trust and respect between people who may disagree and makes the whole thing more fun and easier. | |||
| :::::Obviosuly its not always as easy as that; but as I've said, there are always alternatives to reverting. --] 12:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Come on Aminz its at least three editors! if were so 'persistent' how come were not violating? And youre removing things other editors took just as much hard work to put together. Youre off the hook for now so celebrate. Not everyone get to reverting all the time and only block for a few minutes. Stop arguing and thank these kind admins.] 12:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: It is only you, Str1977 and Aiden (and recently you recalled ArrowXXX). That's pretty much it. --] 12:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'm going to answer this all hypothetically. I havn't looked much further at the acutal dispute; if there are any specific problems, then there are places to report those. See my response at ] for some of the more specific issues raised there. | |||
| So, in a hypothetical situation, it has been raised before that a group of users could 'game' the three revert rule and that this is a flaw in it (see ]). However, it has also been observed that such behaviour is very rare and that more often than not, when users complain of such 'cartels' or 'gaming of the system', it is usually the single user who is being unreasonable. That, of course, does not mean that such problems do not occur. To quote ]: | |||
| :''let's imagine that, say, someone is trying to rewrite World War II to indicate that there was no Holocaust. They repeatedly edit to a prefered version of theirs, and everyone else editing the page reverts them. No discussion is possible between the two groups: the lone user is wrong, and the others are right. On the other hand, imagine a situation where some barely notable company has 5 editors trying to keep their company's article POV to promote the company, and only one honest WP editor knows about it. When the honest editor tries to fix the POV they get reverted by the cartel repeatedly. The difference between the two situations is based on who's right... but that first situation is much more important, critical, and common. So, no prohibition on "cartels." In the second situation, the honest editor does have options: they can report the situation at WP:ANI or nominate the article for deletion, or simply put up a request in a wikiproject for backup.'' | |||
| This clearly allows people to request that other users get involved. My response would be that a single user who thinks he is right and thinks that others would agree with him, can always post on a relevant WikiProject (for example, ] or ]) or make a ]. Of course, the new contributors he speaks to may disagree with him; or the may support him. | |||
| On the other hand, note that ] states ''It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Misplaced Pages articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate.'' Clearly, there is a line which cannot be crossed here. It is OK - indeed, it is encouraged - to ask for comments or inputs on problem pages; but it would be wrong to go to certain users who it is known share a point of view and ask them to intervene. --] 14:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I don't really know what to say. I have a bunch of problems with the article that I will try to list here. Firstly, "Sociological reforms" doesn't make so much sense, since, women, economic, and literary forms would all be "sociological" It is what sociologists say, but, bad section title. | |||
| There are too many quotes without commentary. It is close to violating fair use and... well, it ruins flow, etc. The problem here is that encyclopedias have always been written by experts. I would say we editors have problems in that regards. So, when an expert does a quote it's supposed to be reliably non-anecdotal. For us it's harder to trust that. Also, we need to make sure they are representative of a person's work. Patricia Crones work was being used to call Muslims bloodthirsty when she was talking about a theory of state building saying that violence brought tribes together. So, we have had problems with that before. | |||
| There shouldn't be "notes" and "references" if the notes contain some references and the references is only some of the references. It's mixing two systems. For instance it makes note 10: Schimmel (1992) p. 67 meaningless since it's not in the references. One system needs to be chosen. All references listed in "references" and notes referring to them or all sources listed under notes. I think the split system is better because it allows for different page numbers of the same texts much more easily. | |||
| I think I may have a problem with the whole premise of the article. I'm not full sure... but, I will voice my concerns. Why isn't this a part of ]? Maybe ]? I am also not sure what constitutes a reform? It seems that any belief developed throughout Islamic history is retroactively considered a reform. Take slavery, for instance. The article says: | |||
| :The pressure from the European opponents of slavery on the Ottoman empire to abolish slavery was not because of the situation of slaves in Muslim lands (as it was no worse than, and even in some cases better than, that of the free poor) but because the processes of acquisition and transportation of slaves to Muslim lands often imposed appalling hardships although "once the slaves were settled in Islamic culture they had genuine opportunities to realize their potential. Many of them became merchants in Mecca, Jedda, and elsewhere." | |||
| It's not that that statement is completely wrong. But, Which European opponents are being discussed, there were many many different European ideologies... and what time is this? In the 1500s European opposition would be completely different than in the early 1900s. More importantly, what is the Muslim view on slavery? It has varied over time. So, which of the reforms were done in 610-661? Do the reforms have to be enacted during that time period or are they only ideational reforms? If they are ideational reforms only then you have to show that Islam has been interepreted in vastly different ways over time. In fact, any "Islamic view" will be a reform during that time period. By limiting your time period you are also invalidating lots of those sources since they are generalizing about Islamic history. They also aren't making explicit whether the changes are in what Islam prescribes or how it was practiced. We can't assume that people adhere to the predominant view of the Islam of their time. You really need to clear up the methodology for this. We also have the problem that 610-661 in Arabia is relatively a black box. We don't have many direct sources that we can really verify from the times. There is a growing wave of revisionist scholars who don't even know when the Qur'an was compiled or where Muhammad really lived (Wansbrough questioned if there was a prophet and Crone questions modern day Mecca as the location). So, how can we judge what reforms took place then? This article takes modern interpretations of Islam and puts them as reforms made in 610-661. | |||
| So, let's take literary reforms. If it wasn't codified when Muslims say it was then it wasn't a reform of the time. But, that's something we can get over easily. However, it states "not only did the Qur'an create an entirely new linguistic corpus" Is this a reform? Well, not really... it was a work which helped to influence later Arabic writing and thus the language. | |||
| This article seems to muddle many things together without saying what is being considered reform. If Islam starts widely accepting female imams will that fit into this article? The point is, Muhammad's normative message is widely up for debate. So, without a lot more information from the time period I don't think we can decide what is reform from that era. Of course, most Muslims go back and claim that their views are really the views from prophetic times but that's just groping for legitimacy. | |||
| Animals: my answer to this kind of goes along with everything else. We can't know what the interpretation of Muslims towards animals was from 610-661. We are reading hadith compiled after that date which you can take to be true or not and then interpretations of those hadith from even later than the hadith themselves. So, what from that can we say is reforms in that time period. | |||
| So, what should be done? Well, clear up definitions. If this article means just reforms that were initiated by prophetic message and then events during the post-Muhammad era then it should all be placed in articles about Islamic laws and the realities of Islamic lands over time. If, however you want to keep era reforms then... I think you will have a hard time with the period of 610-661 since it is not well known. We also cannot do "Reforms under Islam 1950-2006" because there are not many primary sources addressing the changes (that I know of). It would just be "Fazlur Rahman in ''Major Themes'' of the Qur'an argued for a more categorical way of looking at the Qur'an to better understand its message while Scholar X argued that taqlid must be adhered to by following earlier scholars. A group labeled Muslim feminists led by Aminah Wadud argued that females could be imams in mixed gender plans". | |||
| Now we could, plausibly do "Reforms under Islam (1500-1700) by stating the predominant themes at the beginnings of that time period and what changes were at the end and then what social factors, and religious rulings had changed over the times. Still, this would be incredibly difficult because we would be trying to limit the changes to how Islam changed things even though economic and demographic changes would have a huge effect. | |||
| Your research is not bad... it could be used in other articles... but, I don't know where this article is going or what it is supposed to be. It needs to be defined much better. So... yeah, I should probably rewrite this to be more clear... but, let's see what you think, first. ] ] 16:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Reliable source == | |||
| Hi Aminz. Yes, it's a 100% scholarly source. I'm sure I don't need to remind you that it still has to be used fairly (remember a certain user who kept misrepresenting sources?). As for getting angry, I wouldn't advise it. It increases the level of stress hormones and eventually shortens your life. As the Americans say "Don't get mad, get even." Email me if I can help in any more specific way. Take care now. ] 19:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Judith, Thanks for your reply. I don't think I have misrepresent it(or any other sources). If you can point me to any specific point, I will accept it and try to change myself. Thanks --] 19:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd suggest you leave the article alone for just a day or two and let other users improve it. Remember, you've done your bit in just creating it. I'm sure that Scott will protect it from vandalism, for example. I need to think about it a bit. I have an enormous amount of respect for Gren, and the points he makes are worth considering. I'll leave a message on his talk page to see if we can come up with some more positive suggestions for the page. ] 21:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sure. Meanwhile I can work on historical impacts of Christianity which I've started :) . --] 23:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've looked up how ] treats the issues that you deal with in the article. He is regarded as at least just as important a historian as Lewis, perhaps a better one. His first chapter is "A New Power in an Old World", and there is a section "Muhammad and the Appearance of Islam". Some of this is worth quoting: | |||
| "There is room for scholarly discussion about the way in which these beliefs developed. The Arabic sources which narrate the life of Muhammad and the formation of a community around him are later in date ... Sources written in other languages fully attest to the conquest of an empire by the Arabs, but what they say about the mission of Muhammad is different from what the Muslim tradition says, and still needs to be studied and discussed. On the other hand, there seems little reason to doubt that the Qur'an is substantially a document of seventh-century Arabia, although it may have taken some time to assume its definitive literary form. ... It seems best therefore to follow the traditional account of the origins of Islam, although with caution. " | |||
| Hourani then goes on to tell of the life of the Prophet, the revelation, the relationship with the Jews of Madina and the Flight. His next chapter is "The Formation of an Empire" which explains the political geography of the formation of the caliphate. His Chapter 3 is "The Formation of a Society" and that is where he describes the differences between Islamic society (as it had developed by the tenth century or so) and the empires that preceded it. He does not describe any reforms having been made in the first Islamic century. | |||
| So in general I think there is something to be said for Gren's argument - that we cannot tie down the reforms of Islam to the seventh century. The "before" and "after" of the coming of Islam is important and yes it should be described in the encyclopedia, but the reforms inevitably took a long time to settle down, and the position was different in countries with long complex histories and cultural traditions. After all, we are talking about Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Iran - countries with some of the longest civilisations on earth. I'm sorry if this is a bit negative but I would be pleased to help in any way with this article or other ones that you want to contribute to. All the best. ] 09:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for your reply. We can carry on "brainstorming" on how the article(s) should be structured. Just a thought: how would it be with an article ]? I'd also recommend you to get the Hourani "A History of the Arab Peoples" from your uni library. It's a useful reference in so many ways. Hope to be back online 9-10 hours from now. ] 10:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==You helped choose ] as this week's ] winner== | |||
| <div style="text-align: center; margin: 0 10%;"> | |||
| {| class="notice noprint" id="{{{id}}}" style="background: #ffccFF; border: 1px solid #ff33FF; margin: 0 auto;" | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| !colspan=2 style="font-size:150%;"|] Misplaced Pages Partnership - We need ''you!'' | |||
| | ] | |||
| |- | |||
| | Thank you for your support of the ''']'''.<br>This week ''']''' was selected to be improved to ] ].<br>Hope you can help. | |||
| |] | |||
| |Hi '''{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}ROOTPAGENAME}}'''! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the ], a project of the ] and ]. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Misplaced Pages using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate ]. Thanks for editing Misplaced Pages and I look forward to working with you! 14:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |} | ||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0531 --> | |||
| </div>](]) 15:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == The Quran == | |||
| The article Criticism of the Quran is about the inhumanity of and contradictory statements in the Quran. Yes, Muslims feel reassured knowing that their religion is not the only one with violence in its past and violent holy books, but that doesn't necessarily mean that quoting the Old Testament (or quoting a doddery Watt quoting the Old Testament) is always appropriate in any discussion of the problems in the Quran. Something you might not know about Christianity and Judaism is that they don't believe the Bible is the literal word of God, just that it is "divinely inspired." Of course it is impossible for Muslims to think this as Muhammad said that he was just "reciting" the literal words of God. It is in large part this feature of Islam that has ensured that Islamic ethics have not and probably never will progress beyond those of a seventh century Arabian warlord. ] 22:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : You seem to be unfamiliar with Christianity and Judaism. There are Christians and Jews who practically view the Bible as Muslims view the Qur'an. And yes, Islam is a practical religon. I admire Jesus for his high standards, but they were highly impractical. And you might want to study the history. In overall, interestingly enough, Muslims have been much more tolerant than Christians. Most Christians of the history have been Christians by name, so have been Muslims. But Muslims by name were more tolerant that Christians by name. --] 00:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am very familiar with both, though I subscribe to neither. There are a minority of Christians and a minority of Jews who take something like the Muslim line. I don't believe that Muslims have been more tolerant than Christians overall. You should examine the history of the Muslim invasions of India. However, I don't believe that the actions taken by political groups subscribing to a religion necessarily reflect the essense of a religion itself. If we're looking at history, it is much more instructive to look at Muhammad. We have to see that Muhammad was an immoral man by current standards; I think most reasonable people would agree with that. The question is, does that mean he wasn't holy? The real question is, would God hold his final prophet to such a low standard? Jesus and most of the other prophets of Israel were actually holy men. They did not seek to gain political power or capture slaves in war. In fact, Jesus, the Buddha, Guru Nanak, and other holy men gained large amounts of followers based solely on their holiness; people were attracted to them because they sensed the good in them. Muhammad lived for many years in Mecca and attracted few followers. It was only after he was expelled that his religion took on a more "practical" tone, and Muhammad stopped being a peaceful preacher of a new faith. It's in the Medinan surahs that you start to see Muhammad the politician, and it's here that we see the verses about capturing concubines and such. As regards Jesus being impractical, it depends on what your values are. Jesus said not to get bothered by minor insults (turn the other cheek, etc). In doing so he changed the Old Testament teaching. 600 years later Muhammad took a great step backward when he set the eye-for-an-eye mentality into stone. Islam from the Medinan period on was a very practical tool for Muhammad the political leaader, but it is unfortunate that these verses, many of which are basically a warlord encouraging his troops, are still looked upon as God's word today. ] 02:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ok == | |||
| Ok, I accept that. But please, as WIkipedians, we have to document the volume of criticism Islam has endured, whether it is true or not. ] (]) 13:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Nice to see you again. And yeah, I am ... tired! ]<sup>]</sup> 08:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :what do you think of The New Encyclopedia of Islam(2002), AltaMira Press. ISBN 0-7591-0189-2 . Is it scholarly, I found in the library, seems to be an excellent source. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Reforms of Islam article == | |||
| Hi Aminz | |||
| As you know reliable sources have to be quoted accurately and it seems that Opiner doesn't understand that. One of the things I thought about the article as it stands is that there is a lot of "according to Professor X of the University of Y, Islam achieved Z". How about changing those statements to just "Islam achieved Z. <nowiki> <ref> Professor X, ''Book about Islam'', University of Y Press, 2006 </ref> </nowiki>". In my view it would sound more encyclopedic. Whether Professor X is a good source can be discussed on the talk page. I'll look at Opiner's changes. | |||
| Best wishes ] 14:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've commented to Opiner that I don't paticularly agree with his reasoning on that one. I think you are fine to revert a change once (see the ]; it is really only edit warring if you start reverting reverts, or if you revert every change that people make. Have you tried making a post at ], to attract a few outside views? Alternatively, you could perhaps find a sociologist, theologist or historian who quotes the art theorist's work, to justify your use of it. | |||
| :Oh, and I agree with Itsmejudith's style suggestion above unless a view that is paticulalrly singular or controversial is being discussed. ] 22:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Authority == | |||
| You seem to think that if a tenured professor writes something, it should be accepted. Why do you speak that way? A tenured professor is someone who has been given a PhD by tenured professors, and then tenure by other tenured professors. That's it; it doesn't mean that he's highly intelligent, or at all wise. ] 05:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Spencer has no formal education on Islam. He is criticized by Academic scholars like ]. His books are published by right wing publications. There is no reason to use him while there are too many scholars available. --] 05:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Even if it were the case that his books are published by right wing publishers (which seems to be largely false), that does not mean that he is not a good source. The scholars that get PhDs from the incenstuous ivory tower elite institutions, like the ones you listen to, are largely not credible (except possibly Ibn Warraq; I'm not sure if he finished his PhD with Watt or not). How can you expect a scholar who does not view Islam with rose colored glasses like they do to get a PhD at all? This is why Spencer didn't get a PhD; there was no one to work with. ] 06:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::To weigh in on this one here: we cannot make sources gold-dust just because they have bueen published by someone with higher education qualifications. On the other hand though, that sort of conspiracy theory is just completely unworkable. If we were to follow that line of thinking, we would be unable to use most sources. Read things critically, of course, ] things, but ] neeeds to apply to how we view our sources too. --] 09:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That is reasonable. I'm not claiming Aminz can't use those sources, just complaining about them. Also the worshipful tone he has when he talks about these people is something of an issue for me. It is painful. ] 10:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::OK, well I'm logging off Misplaced Pages now (I have ] to do) but I've dropped a note/or will first a drop a note for a few others to look in on all this. It is interesting that Arrow claims Aminz's sources are left wing; and Aminz you have claimed that this other writer is right-wing. This worries me as it suggests that there might not be much of a compromise; so at the moment I suggest you return to the article's talk page and keep discussing. Remember that the neutral point of view allows us to present opinions, but as such (see ]). --] 10:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I don't think ANI is quite appropriate yet. If this scholar is offending Islam and claiming that Muhamad was anti-Semitic, your best option is to provide a raft of credible sources that prove otherwise. --] 10:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not sure if you're so worshipful of authorities because you want what they say to be true, or if you're just naturally in awe of people in positions of power. The issue with Spencer is that he doesn't have a PhD or tenure. Where could he get a PhD? You have Ernst, and you have Spencer. Both are scholars. One is in the establishment, one is not. One is not very famous or influential, the other is both. That's it. ] 10:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :just like Spencer to absolve himself of any responsibility for failing to get educated about islam before talking of it. regardless of whatever kind of excuses he may invent (or you for him), the fact remains that he has not a single qualification related to islamic studies. this, as well as his typically unscholarly, sensationalist work about islam, means that the ways in which he can be used on wikipedia are rather limited. ] 17:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::He is educated about Islam (this is getting ridiculuous). Prove that it is unscholarly and sensationalist. Anyway we both know that we should use him in Criticism of the Quran and Criticism of Islam, regardless of other articles. ] 22:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::of course he isn't educated about islam: what formal education does he have? he may be used in the criticism articles because he is notable (though not ]), but what must be ascertained is in what manner and to what extent he can be used. ] 00:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::He's a reliable source, at the very least for what we're using him for. He knows more about Islam than you, I have little doubt. ] 00:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::he's not really a reliable source, by any stretch of the imagination. doesn't matter if you think he knows more about islam than me: i'm not claiming to be a ]. ] 01:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::He knows a lot about Islam (more than you). So he learned it. Thus he is educated about it. Also, see ], you will see that he is a reliable source. ] 03:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::]. rather, he is a ], with no academic qualification for the subject in which you want to declare his words as gospel truth. at least Aminz is using real academics. ] 12:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You said that he isn't educated. As I indicated, that's stupid, as he knows a lot about Islam, and could only attain that knowledge through the process of education. ] 09:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Spencer's scholarship has been questioned by scholars of his field. I don't know any one whose scholarship has been questioned to that extent. Spencer's books are not publisjed in the presses that peer-review the books. This is quite important in relation with ]--] 09:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This from them who want to using the Professors of Art! A degree in toilet science is qualified to talk about Islam but a career of talking about Islam is not!] 09:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Im telling you again the 'peers' of the peer review are just that. Other specialist in your field. NOT from other field to check what youre saying about that.] 09:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| A Professor of Islamic Art at Harvard University who publishes his work in a famous press is a reliable source. --] 09:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :On Islamic art yes, possibly even on other kinds of art. Not on every topic. ] 10:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == sources == | |||
| Lets take this issue to ] and solve this problem, once for all. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Our stance should be to achieve NPOV without sacrificing ] and ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::We all want that. ] 11:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :No harm in waiting. Cheers! ]<sup>]</sup> 10:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::wait ]<sup>]</sup> 11:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Done: ]<sup>]</sup> 11:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No two goats will butt heads about him, eh? ] 22:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Can ] be written in prose? ]<sup>]</sup> 13:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Re article protection== | |||
| Aminz and Arrow740. This is too much. Remember wikipedia policies re to verifiabilty, notable sources and so on. Saying Muslims are anti-semites (re pigs and dogs) or Jewish are racists (chosen people) is OR. It is so damn obvious that there are people out there who are Muslims anti-semites or Jews recists. So what?! IMHO, as i always love to be clear and not looking to be mean or offend anyone but if you both understand this than you are into the game of wikipedia. If not than you are a pain in the ass just abusing your knowledge. | |||
| If Arrow740 thinks Muhammad was anti-semite than it is his POV and no problem w/ that. On the other hand, if Aminz argues that it is not the case than it is his POV and no problem w/ that. BUT DON'T MAKE A FUSS OUT OF IT. Your problem guys is that you got a temperament and that's not a good thing to edit this encyclopaedia. You got to leave that temperament in your closet and walk the way out w/o it. -- '']'' → <small>]</small> 11:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've never said Jews are racial whatsoever. I never insulted Jews. --] 20:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for your message Aminz. Just insist on WP:RS and, like Szvest says, don't let yourself get wound up. Easier said than done, I know. ] 17:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == hey Aminz == | |||
| good work on providing some well sourced contributions of late. i was just flicking through Forward's book a moment ago (need to return it soon) and i recalled that his short sira work actually devotes quite a bit to Muhammad and controversial aspects- including modern critiques, and deals with it in a somewhat insightful manner. i think you'd find it a great read: perhaps you could check it out sometime. (i put this on the wrong talkpage!) ] 00:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Getting used to the "real world" is a good thing. But you haven't responded yet that how can we change the list into a prosey language at ] or you can post your comments there on talk page. Cheers! ]<sup>]</sup> 04:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank for what :p ]<sup>]</sup> 05:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, you mean, correcting the link. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not a bad idea. I am not very aware of ] but I know what is happening on the talk page of ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I remember that ] actually raised this issue of using ] and ] on ] article, and all the admins helped him to the fullest. Why can't we use these very important policies to backup our case. It is a shame! ]<sup>]</sup> 08:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Itaqallah has recently got a few offers (see ]). ]<sup>]</sup> 08:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::For which one? ]<sup>]</sup> 08:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Congrats == | |||
| Congrats Joturner. When did you become an admin?!! You deserved it man. --] 06:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Jazakallah khairan. I became an admin not too long ago — about three hours ago. -- ''']''' 06:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Joturner, though we sometimes disagree (historically I mean :) ) but may I stop by your talk page when I needed help? --] 06:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Of course; there was never a point when you couldn't. -- ''']''' 06:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Lies == | |||
| As regards anti-Semitism, instead of listening to biased people, why don't you examine the evidence yourself? Saying that you'll only believe something if someone else says it is an abdication of your responsibility to make your own decisions. You make this choice because deep down you know where reason would take you, and it scares you to think of losing something that has shaped you since you were young. ] 08:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Not a response == | |||
| Indeed it is a response. You put it in there in response to other things present in the article. This article is Criticism of the Quran, and we should place criticism first, because that is what the article is about. Pro-Islam stuff should come after. If you want to write an article about peaceful interpretations of the Quran, then we can put your stuff first there, followed by the other stuff. ] 08:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The article is about criticism of the Quran. Keep that in mind. ] 09:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==No worries== | |||
| No worries Amin. It is part of the discussion. It was not an offence to me as you were explaining yourself. I am also sorry if i were a bit harsh on my message to you and Arrow. The point is that i feel sad when i see your long discussions/edit warring on articles and believe that unless you do not refer to the village pump (policy) you will find it so hard to reach a concensus on the matter of sources. This is my ''little thinking''. Feel free to approach me anytime and don't feel sorry. -- '']'' → <small>]</small> 09:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Mediation == | |||
| I signed up. It's a pity that RfCs don't get any responses, because how to make the article NPOV should really be resolved at that stage. Anyway, I hope that mediation will yield some positive results. ] 13:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Not a Persian == | |||
| No indeed, I'm British - I realise my username is a bit misleading, but it's what some of my friends in Delhi call me (my name is Alexander, of which "Sikandar" is the Urdu version, the "ji" is a Hindi honorific, used ironically in my case). I actually wrote most of the section on Said's academic critics, and I don't much like his work for all the reasons currently set out on the page. However I can't abide the politicisation of this dispute: many scholars have taken issue with Said's claims about "Orientalism" on academic grounds, but it should not be used as an opportunity for political mud-slinging - one should simply point out the inconsistencies and inaccuracies in his approach. Unfortunately plenty of people want to hijack this to make crude anti-Islamic and anti-Palestinian points, and that I object to strongly. Thus far I have found myself holding the ring in Hindu/Muslim disputes on Indian history pages and Turkish/Iranian disputes on Central Asian pages. I'm not sure I have the energy to get sucked into Jewish/Muslim disputes as well. It seems some people only come to Misplaced Pages in order to fight. ] 00:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you! I was actually in the library, and I just thought of putting a few quotes as section "Resurrection" had a POV tag. But I can't understand, how to tell that scholarly POV has to be respected. I am hopeful that we might be able to get a ruling over this issue in the latest ]. Cheers! ]<sup>]</sup> 08:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Guidelines == | |||
| Please indicate your agreement with or disagreement with both of the proposed guidelines . If you disagree, please give a logical argument for that disagreement. ] 10:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I do not agree with your summary idea. One problem with this is that I do not think it would be possible to provide short neutral summaries of the issues. The Crone piece is not neutral; the Quran advocates certain treatment of pagans, and a different treatment of Muslims, so her piece (if you summarized it correctly) is not only biased, but false as well. Another problem is that, again, the focus of the article is the criticism itself, and general discussions of particular issues belong in other article. Perhaps we could link to the ] article. It just doesn't make sense to start sections with material that doesn't really belong. ] 10:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Mediation == | |||
| I'll respond by tomorrow. ] 10:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not sure I'm involved. I mean, I'll comment if I'm around but I didn't get into any of the edit wars... I'm not sure if I even edited. I'm also somewhat busy... or, at least not coming to Misplaced Pages as much when online so I may not be around so much. It used to be unheard of to see edits from a week ago in my "last 50 contributions". Since I have never been a part of mediation I don't know if I can 'weigh in' if not involved. ] ] 21:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Aminz, I haven't really been involved with the dispute so I'm not sure how I can help in this dispute resolution step. How do you think I might be of assistance? ''(]])'' 00:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk page vandalism == | |||
| Thank you for reverting vandalism of my talk page. --] <font color = "blue"><sup>]</sup></font> 12:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I couldn't understand Dab's comments on ]. Is it a positive or a negative comment? :( ]<sup>]</sup> 15:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :there are so many article on "antisemitism" that it is difficult to keep them updated ;) BTW, I agree with your reasoning on antisemitism article, and this is what I was saying as well, Dhimmi rule should have been aboragated after "Sahaba" but instead it was appropriated for later eras. Maybe, I'll be not available for today. Best of luck! ]<sup>]</sup> 12:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Dost == | |||
| Your wikifriend BhaiSaab used no sources at all. My sources are medeival? pardon me if I die laughing!] 00:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :responded on your talk page. --] 00:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The Political Theory of the Delhi Sultanate (Including a Translation of Ziauddin Barani's "Fatawa-i Jahandari," circa 1358-9 A.D.), trans. Mohammad Habib and Afsar Umar Salim Khan (Allahabad: Kitab Mahal, n.d.), 67. | |||
| ::It is cited in this paper (among others) . So yes, it is peer-reviewed.] 00:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I can email you a copy of the paper if you want.] 00:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The findings of this paper are irrelevant to Hkelkar's argument, it doesn't say anything about the establishment of Muslim castes. I suggest you not waste your time. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi Aminz, | |||
| The article used to say that Muslims have a caste system entirely based on Fatwas. I later attempted to correct this, and Hkelkar attempted to compromise and say that some castes were based on the influence of Hinduism in India, and some were based on fatwas. As I've shown on the talk page, the fatwas have no role in establishing any castes, but only proving a limited "religious" legitimacy for a specific period of time. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I see --] 01:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::he has shown nothing of the sort. He has not cited any reliable sources (I have).] 01:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The file of the Darling paper is here: ] 01:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Wrong. muslim societies in yemen and Central Asia have observed castes.] 01:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Please show me the source. It is interesting. --] 01:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, you must remember that Hkelkar does not consider sources like ], ], the ], or ] reliable sources. There's not much we can do about that unfortunately. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : ] and ] are undoubtedly reliable sources but as to ], ], well I prefer to check the author. --] 01:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did add the page #. Look at the citation carefully.] 02:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I added my comments on the talk page. It seems like a misrepresentation; the source says "Muslim writers" were not influenced by Hinduism - Hkelkar added that Muslim castes were not influenced by Hinduism. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Aminz, I'm writing you an email right now. Please do not comment further on this issue until you read it. :) ] <sup>]</sup> 03:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Wikistalking == | |||
| Amin, I mean no offense, but I do not consider you to be fully sane, and I will not respond to questions or requests of yours unless I have to. ] 08:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your posting== | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Could you please clarify what you were referring to in your last post on my talk page. Thanks. ] ] 08:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Has been cleared up. ] ] 20:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Johnson == | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692007949 --> | |||
| == Criticism of Islam/Sub article: History of criticism of Islam ; Modern criticism of Islam listed at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Criticism of Islam/Sub article: History of criticism of Islam ; Modern criticism of Islam'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 13:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination for deletion of ] == | |||
| ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 00:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| Johnson's works of history have likely outsold those of Lewis by a wide margin. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] ] 09:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:57, 11 March 2024
 | This user may have left Misplaced Pages. AAA765 has not edited Misplaced Pages since December 22, 2008. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
 | User:AAA765 (talk) is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Fair use rationale for Image:Profwatt.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Profwatt.jpg. I notice the image 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. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
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 non-free media 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Moses:On hold
Salam brother,
At present I'm reviewing Moses. It has narrated the life of Moses on the basis of Bible, and I think we should pat attention to Qur'an too. Thus I asked to narrate Moses's life on the basis of Qur'an. I think Shia and sunni agree on it and we can use al-Mizan as a source. But please check it and help me with it.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- It would be failed.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Banu Nadir
Stillman's assertion that "Huyayy B. Akhtab had gone from Khaybar with his son to join the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina" stands. Neither Watt nor any other scholar has said that there were any Banu Nadir troops in the army that participated in attacking the Muslim community. Quite the contrary, all sources on the detailed composition of the allied army at the Battle of the Trench confirm the absence of any Banu Nadir combatants. Accredited (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Credible author
Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the telescope article but this editor seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in Mr. Richard Powers. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.
Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus, so I will do the same. The Islamic connection here is, Al-Haytham. He is FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. Can you help your fellow InternetHero?? InternetHero (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
A article review:Battle of the Trench
Salam Brother, I nominated Battle of the Trench to be reviewed by "WikiProject Military history" reviewers I hope you can help me with it.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
how are you
thanks for editing islamic peace. what are u doing these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zikrullah (talk • contribs) 08:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
GA sweeps hold on Isaac
As part of the GA sweeps the Isaac artcle has been reassessed and found to need some work. I have put it on hold for a week pending further edits. The review can be found here. I identified you as the primary editor. I can be reached at my talk page if you have any questions. H1nkles (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review
Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xeno 14:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Further to the above, we would appreciate if you could briefly take the time to place yourself below one of the suggested statements here. If none of these statements represents your current position, please compose your own or simply sign "Not applicable" under "Other quick clarifications". Likewise sign as N/A if you do not want to participate further in this debate. If you choose not to respond then you will likely not be counted with respect to further consensus-determining efforts. –xeno 14:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
GA Reassessment of Ishmael
I have done the GA Reassessment of Ishmael as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found a few items that concern me about the article. My review can be found here. I have held the article for a week and I am notifying you as the primary editor in the hope that work can be done to keep it at GA. Please contact me at my talk page if you have any questions. H1nkles (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello AAA765! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 11 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
- Jere L. Bacharach - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Criticism of Judaism
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Judaism. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Judaism (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:AAA765/The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history
User:AAA765/The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:AAA765/The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:AAA765/The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
We're recruiting art lovers!
| Archives of American Art Wikimedia Partnership - We need you! | |
|---|---|
 |
Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the Smithsonian Archives of American Art and I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about art to participate in furthering art coverage on Misplaced Pages. I am planning contests and projects that will allow you access, no matter where you live, to the world's largest collection of archives related to American art. Please sign up to participate here, and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC) |
Invitation to workshops on editing Misplaced Pages
Dear AAA765,
We are a team of researchers at the University of Oxford and AU Sharjah, researching the experiences of editors of content about the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. We are interested in your experiences of editing Misplaced Pages and are organising two events that we think you would be an excellent contributor to.
First, we are hosting an online wiki focus group about contributing to Misplaced Pages in Arabic and to articles about the Middle East and North Africa. We are interested in what barriers you perceive to exist in Misplaced Pages, how articles can be made better and generally what can be done to expand and improve Arabic Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages articles about the Arab world. This discussion will take place on a MediaWiki hosted at our institution and be available in English and Arabic. We will allow users to create their own discussion pages in addition to our discussions.
Second, we are hosting face-to-face workshops in Cairo from 21st-22nd October 2012. If you are interested in this we should be able to pay travel and accommodation costs for up to twenty participants. This workshop will cover similar themes to the online discussion but will allow participants to meet one another and benefit from being together.
We will take care of the organization and planning and all you have to do is show up and be ready to discuss. But if you would like to help shape some of the discussion themes in advance, please let us know. We have booked time in the workshops for Wikipedian-led discussions.
More details can be found by expanding our “Frequently Asked Questions” below.
We would be delighted to welcome you to either (or both) event. Please let us know (wikiproject@oii.ox.ac.uk) if you would like the opportunity to participate and we can send you more details.
Sincerely,
Mark, Bernie, Ilhem, Ali, Ahmed, and Heather
Dr. Mark Graham, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Dr. Bernie Hogan, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Dr. Ilhem Allagui, Department of Mass Communication, American University of Sharjah; Dr. Ali Frihida, National Engineering School of Tunis; Heather Ford, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Ahmed Medhat, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford;
| Frequently Asked Questions |
|---|
* What is the purpose of this project?
|
OIIOxford (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC), tidied 11:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Status of Christians under different rules
The article Status of Christians under different rules has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Only dhimmi section has any content. Article title is unclear.
While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Editor2020 (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!
| World Digital Library Misplaced Pages Partnership - We need you! | |
|---|---|
 |
Hi AAA765! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Misplaced Pages using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Misplaced Pages and I look forward to working with you! 14:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC) |
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Criticism of Islam/Sub article: History of criticism of Islam ; Modern criticism of Islam listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Criticism of Islam/Sub article: History of criticism of Islam ; Modern criticism of Islam. Since you had some involvement with the Criticism of Islam/Sub article: History of criticism of Islam ; Modern criticism of Islam redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Muhammad timeline in Medina
Template:Muhammad timeline in Medina has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Isaac
Isaac has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 09:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Categories: