Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:22, 29 May 2022

Sidi Bou Said

Hello. It is the same. Sidi Bou Zid is older and I think obsolete spelling. - Darwinek 11:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. -- FayssalF - 11:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Please unprotect Expulsion of Germans after World War II

There is the risk that we will have disruption from one anonymous troublemaker who is suspected to be a sock puppet of a blocked user (User:Serafin). Hopefully, he will not make any more trouble but, in any event, we should encourage anonymous editing per Misplaced Pages principles and therefore I think it is time to take semi-protection off Expulsion of Germans after World War II.

Thank you.

--Richard 00:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard. It will be automatically unprotected at Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:53:54 GMT. -- FayssalF - 12:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights in Sri Lanka

Thanks for protecting it, as you can see from the talk page it is still not calm down but al least people are talking instead of rv each others entries. ThanksRaveenS 13:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raveen. I saw the progress at the talk page. I hope a consensus will be reached very soon. Cheers. -- FayssalF - 13:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Visit to Joujouka

Hi Fayssal. I see you mentioned on Mel's talk page that you are thinking of a visit to Joujouka. An excellent idea. I will be very interested to hear your impressions. I have never been there myself and don't speak the language. However, I was in Morocco last Xmas and actually drove past Tetuan but didn't stop. My lasting memory of Tetuan was the huge open-air sheep market along the road heading south towards Chefchaouen. Jonur 16:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jonur. It is nice to hear you visited the area before. I am from Tetouan but live in Casablanca. Do you have any new plans re another visit? -- FayssalF - 12:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Tamilnet

The same set of edit pattersn in the above mentioned article, no discussion but wholsale removal of journal citations. Can you help restore normalcy in this article. This is the peer reviewed aricle that has been removed archive of it Thanks RaveenS 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad

Zazaban tries to impose some baseline of topicality to the talk page discussion., . The second of these was reverted by Wjhonson.. I seconded Zazaban’s edit, but was likewise reverted., . Wjhonson left both of us vandalism warnings,, to which I replied as follows: What is your opinion on this matter, as it will surely arise in the future? As it is, the talk page remains a nearly unusable mess, and I feel like Zazaban and I are being told that violates policy for us to change this.Proabivouac 17:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pro. Sorry for this late reply. Well, checking the history, i must say that you and Zazaban acted the proper way (somehow according to WP:TPG and WP:NOT).

However, Wjhonson is also correct in reverting back. The point is that you, Zazaban and Wjhonson did not make a difference between the 2 sections in question. As i see here, there's "Question about Muhammad" and then "What's the big deal with posting Mohammed's picture?". For me, the last section is out of topic as it does not deal w/ the topic. For the first section, while assuming good faith, i'd have asked the editor of that section about the name of the book he talked about and see if he's just trolling before removing that section. -- FayssalF - 12:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud

Can you please look at Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud article; the official name of the river is Shatt al-Arab. The other name is only used by Iran .Khoikhoi removed the article and made some unverified edits (obviously he gave his opinion somehow).The river is about 75% in Iraq. The U.N uses Shatt al-Arab as the name of this river. It is unfair to apply some roles on The Persian gulf article and not apply it on Shatt al-Arab article especially when an admin like Khoikhoi did that .--Aziz1005 22:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Commented at the talk page. -- FayssalF - 13:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Firstmachine.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Iamunknown 04:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Vital articles

Salam. Why don't you answer my mails. I've sent about 4 mails to you and you didn't answer them.

There is a debate about notable articles of Muslim civilization in Misplaced Pages talk:Vital articles#Eurocenterism Unfortunately I don't have enough information about Islamic-Arabic part of it. Please participate in this debate or ask another knowledgeable Arab to participate. Please don't invite any pan-Arab.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab

Dear editor,
You recently took part in the discussion of this move request. The format of the move request has been modified, to simplify the discussion and thus help the closing WP:RM administrator.

You are invited to re-state your opinion on the issue, or modify your previous comment, under the new format. - Best regads, Ev 20:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

• Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Misplaced Pages editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA. --Anthony.bradbury 14:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Better source request for Image:Rubenrausing.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rubenrausing.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. —Angr 05:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rubenrausing.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rubenrausing.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.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 05:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Firstmachine.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Angr 05:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale FAC

To let you know that Casino Royale (2006 film) has undergone improvement in the last week and I have now nominated it for Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates. I have worked extensively in polishing it off and I would very much appreciate you taking the time to review the article and state your opinion. Thankyou. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 09:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Some important things to look at

Here. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Salam. Kayfa anta ya akhi?

Unfortunately 1 or 2 guys vandalizes Hezbollah:]. What should we do?--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Salam sa.vakilian. I am fine, thanks :)

Wiki alf blocked indef the 2 vandals . If that happens again, just revert w/o caring about the 3RR. Remember, the three revert rule says don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours. This is understood not to include reverting cases of clear vandalism (as in this case). Also, always notify cases at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism for prompt action by admins. -- FayssalF - 10:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Albertbrown80

FayssalF, whoever is behind User:Funnypop12 has opened a new puppet, User:Albertbrown80, who continues the very same disruptive behavior. Additionally, his first edit of 28 March evaded Funnypop's last block.Proabivouac 19:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pro. I tend to agree w/ you but i prefer to go thru WP:RFCU in order to respect formalities. -- FayssalF - 21:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Islamic Honorifics and Islamic Honorifics

This is totally trivial, but...

Could you look in on my question at Talk:Islamic Honorifics? I was trying to tell a user why I had reverted his changes at Muslim. In making links to encourage him to look around, I ended up at Islamic Honorifics. With the subject of PBUH in mind I couldn't immediately figure out which of those phrases PBUH could substitute for. Could you answer, or pass this on to someone else? Shenme 03:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I answered your question here. -- FayssalF - 11:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Portal

Nice work on the Ottoman Portal. Is it really so that you chose the Vaslui battle as the first event to the portal? Either way, it's an honour to have the article added there. Keep up the good work. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anittas. Thanks for your comment. Actually the Battle of Vaslui is a well referenced and organized article with a GA rating. I also tried to focus on events that happened in different time periods. Tell me, how is the portal is generated on your browser. I have some problems w/ the layout sometimes but i am not sure if it is my browser or not. -- FayssalF - 15:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, yeah, but that's not what I asked. :p I also have some problems with the layout: since the events are shifting, some articles are listed below the other articles, instead of filling the whole page in an organized way. I suggest you get rid of the shifting technique -- unless you can control it --, and manually place and change the first-page events. You may have better control over the layout, as you can decide what template to go right, or what photo to go left. Your userpage is also having some difficulties in showing everything. I don't know much about Portals, but you can check other portals and see what they did and ask them for advice, in case you need it. --Thus Spake Anittas 15:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The layout is the same as of Portal:Italian Wars. I've just asked Kirill for help. -- FayssalF - 15:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem you're having is caused by unclosed tags within the subpages themselves. For example, Portal:Military history of the Ottoman Empire/Selected quote/4 has <div> but no corresponding </div>; when the subpage is rendered onto the main portal page, this breaks the layout of everything that follows after it. You just need to be careful not to leave unclosed tags in anything you're transcluding. Kirill Lokshin 15:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks Kirill. I went through many verifications and missed those 2 tags! SMH! -- FayssalF - 15:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you for the support vote in my recent RfA. Although it wasn't successful I appreciate your vote of confidence. Anyway, I'm continuing on with editing Pacific War-related articles and hopefully you'll see several of them on the FA nominations page in the future. Cla68 22:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

User:DavidYork71

Hi FayssalF,
DavidYork71 is evading his latest week-long block with transparent sockpuppet User:BongHitz4Musa. I am certain that an extension of his block will meet with the community's approval.Proabivouac 08:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

To indefinite that is. And yes there is no doubt that there is wide support for it. (→Netscott) 09:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Next sock: User:Amatullah33. (→Netscott) 10:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong action is warranted. To me, the point is not how long he is blocked, but the conditions which accompany an unblock. I support an indefinite block until such time as he candidly acknowledges and engages the community's ongoing concerns. The point is not to punish him, but to strongly invite him back to lawful and respectable behavior. So, indef block, with a standing offer to re-reduce it to one week (or even immediate unblock, for all I care) upon admission of and repentance for sockpuppeting to vote-stack and evade his block, and meaningful/good faith engagement of the trolling concerns.Proabivouac 10:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The time for AGFing has come and gone... this individual is not here to help write an encyclopedia. (→Netscott) 10:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi FayssalF,

User:DavidYork is gaming the system by creating sockpuppets and violating his block. During his block, he has so far created at least 10 socks(7 users + 3 IPs) blocked one after another by a couple of admins; has also further used these accounts to votestack for the Hitler article to be chosen for the GA article drive. Please see my suggestion here: . Thanks --Aminz 09:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aminz. Has any of the socks been created after my last warning at his talk page? Please provide me w/ facts. -- FayssalF - 10:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Socks created after your warning: User:Qisas, ; User:ĐộclậpTudoHạnhphúc , User:Blandneutrality

Sockpuppet user:Tjsquirrelmaster edits after your warning until gets blocked: ; so does user:BongHitz4Musa. --Aminz 19:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fayssal. --Aminz 19:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I support this block per the above discussion, and further misconduct.Proabivouac 21:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sprotect request

Hi Fayssal,

Since David has access to a floating ip address and creates new accounts, would you please sprotect the articles he has been active in for some time. It discourages him of making new accounts. Thanks. Here are the list of some articles: Terrorism in Australia,Homosexuality , Islam and slavery, Women in Islam, 1926 Slavery Convention, United Nations 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, Child servitude, 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Thanks --Aminz 20:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do so, as this the only practical way to stop him from violating his block.Proabivouac 21:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure guys if that would be the appropriate action to take. I suggest you just revert his socks on the spot for now. If it gets worse then we can sprotect them. -- FayssalF - 13:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Akhilleus

Archive_S, thanks for your support in my successful RfA. As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons, which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance, or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools, please leave me a message on my talkpage. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Avicenna page

since you edited it before, what do you think of the removal of sourced information from the article, despite it complying with all Misplaced Pages rules? Weiszman 22:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just commented at the article talk page. -- FayssalF - 10:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

{{military browsebar}}

Was the idea here to link to all military-related portals, or is there some selection criterion I'm missing? If it's the former, there's a few missing; see the bottom of Portal:War. We should probably figure out what we're going to do here, so we can avoid having to keep redundant lists. :-) Kirill Lokshin 12:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought about the redundancy in fact but wanted to experiment it and get a feed-back. We can delete it and revert all the edits if you believe so. -- FayssalF - 12:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I like the browsebar idea; I was just wondering why some link were missing! The only real quibble I have with the placement is the horizontal lines before and after it; I'll need to play around with it some, but I suspect it'll look neater without them on most portals. Kirill Lokshin 12:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we can discuss it at w/ other coordinators? I am also not sure if it a good idea to keep it. -- FayssalF - 12:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to, if you see the need; but, really, it doesn't seem like something that needs central direction. So long as the portal editors are fine with it, using it seems like a good idea.

I did some playing around, incidentally, and I think the version here is the placement I prefer. Other portal editors may, of course, disagree. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 12:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice tuning. Well, yes, we'll see what the reaction of portals' maintainers would be. Thanks Kirill. -- FayssalF - 12:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

South-American-task-force=yes

Next time, could mark your changes as Minor so I dont have all my watchlist full with this ? thks --Jor70 12:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jor. Sorry about the inconvenience. HOwever, i am not editing any article but adding tags to wikiprojects templates. I'll do even though i use the edit summary which mentions my additions. -- FayssalF - 12:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Enni Asefon li va lakom

Salam. I'm really ashamed that we recognized ourselves as Muslims. I put a comment in Talk:Avicenna. Please go and think about it. We are deserved to be governed by non-Muslims. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I become hopeless of Muslims in wikipedia. You can find that there's just 3 FA article and any GA one(Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam/Assessment). While all of these scholars like Avicenna, Rumi, etc are Muslims while they may Arab, Turk, Persian, Indian, etc.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what's wrong w/ Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam but there are more than 60 active members. -- FayssalF - 14:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are numerous active members but such discussions waste our energy. And you can find numerous discussions like this. Our style of working isn't constructive. Just pay attention to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam#Current issues--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty aware of the fact that the way and manner of working isn't constructive but try first to involve people you believe they can do better by requesting that from them. Try to contact people on that list and see if they can move forward. -- FayssalF - 15:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

arabic wikipedia

i invite u to write in arabic wikipedia because it suffer from low number of articles, so can u help us --Mmustafa 22:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Mohamed. You invited me to participate in the Arabic Misplaced Pages. Actually, I already have an account there and I have made hundreds of edits there. However, I decided, for the moment, to concentrate in the English Misplaced Pages. I, for sure, will start participating again in the Arabic Misplaced Pages as soon as possible (possibly in next February).

Thank you.

--Meno25 20:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Thanks Mustafa. -- FayssalF - 13:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Technical problem peer review

I had asked for peer review of Tamilnet article. In the process it was suggested to rename it TamilNet. When I did it, I lost the connection between and That is what is showing in the talk page peer review page and the main page is no longer the same. Can you help please. Thanks RaveenS 22:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing abnormal. What you did was correct. The article talk page template directs you straight to Misplaced Pages:Peer review#TamilNet. You have also done it right when you added {{Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Tamilnet}} to the WP:PR main page. Or maybe i haven't understood what the problem is. -- FayssalF - 23:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the servors had not caought up with my changes when I brought it up, now both the versions look the same. Thansk again RaveenS 15:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot for your recent support in my RfA. I am now an admin. J Milburn 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user - DavidYork71

I just reverted this edit by 149.135.88.17 because it looked identical to this edit by DavidYork71 who you recently blocked. Can you run a checkuser to see if this is the same person? Thanks! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 14:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Whereizben. Unfortunately, i don't have access to the checkUser tools. You can try at WP:RFCU. I suggest you just revert for now unless it gets too much. -- FayssalF - 14:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will just keep an eye on it, and if needed I will ask at WP:RFCU for help! Thanks! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 14:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Request assistance with user pages that have apparently been deleted

Hi,

I have unofficially adopted a bunch of new users who have been taking some time to understand what Misplaced Pages is about and how we do things here. One of them, User:Coolman76 seems to have exercised his m:Right to vanish. One of Coolman76's friends (User:Mstare88 asked me what happened to Coolman76's account and, of course, as a non-admin, I can only speculate. Are you able to look at the deletion log and determine what happened? I'm thinking that there might be an edit summary that says something like "User account deleted at user's request". I'm assuming that, short of a CSD, AFD or RFARB, there's no other reason for the account to disappear. Coolman76's account did seem to be a "vandalism only" account but I'm thinking that's a reason for a block, not a deletion.

Another "adoptee", User:9999a9999 found his Talk Page to have been deleted and recreated it with a query as to why it had been deleted. I left messages on that Talk Page a week or two ago so I know it existed a week or two ago. Can you tell me what happened?

Thanks. I'm just trying to help these new users learn how to become valued members of our community.

--Richard 17:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard,

• Coolman76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is nothing but a vandal. All his edits are considered vandalism as per Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. He was by admin Natalie Erin as a vandal only account. He made an unblock request but didn't give any reason for that aand therefore admin Ryanpostlethwaite whom i trust too much declined his request stating that offered a reason why the account should be unblocked.
• Mstare88 (talk · contribs) is probably a sockpuppet of Coolman76 as they have edited the same articles. However, i haven't seen any sign of vandalism from this account.
• 9999a9999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another vandal and probably a sockpuppet of 55555five55555 (talk · contribs) (at least they are mates). Look at this sneaky vandalism 9999a9999 did.

My advice is that try to not waste your time w/ these accounts. -- FayssalF - 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Archive_S, thank you very much for your support in my successful RfA. I am thankful and humbled by the trust that the community has placed in me, and I welcome any comments, questions or complaints that you may have. Again, thank you for your support, and happy editing! Hemlock Martinis 22:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Burroughs, Jajouka, etc.

Salaam, Fayssal. I write to elicit your assistance with the continuing edit war at a great number of articles related to the Master Musicians of Jajouka. I am informed by Abelelkrim that you are already aware of the situation, so I will not waste time with details. The anonymous user 141.155.10.116 has been continuously deleting external links from these articles which he claims are libellous. I have encouraged him, as you can see on his talk page, to come forward with evidence of said libel, but to no avail. At this point, my patience has run out. His actions are vandalism, and someone needs to bring a stop to it. I await your response. Thank you for your time. ---Charles 03:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Charles. I have consulted my colleague Mel and i am waiting for his opinion on the matter. I'll update you once i get his reply. -- FayssalF - 13:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The anon editor had already been blocked for edit-warring and violating 3RR by another admin when I got there. I'll keep a close eye on him, and block again if he continues. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mel. -- FayssalF - 14:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to you both, gentlemen, for your time and attention to this matter. It appears the same user has started up again with a slightly different IP: 141.155.26.196. And on and on it goes... ---Charles 15:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear FayssalF, Please read my discussion entry to the Bachir Attar article. It would be appreciated if the Brink.com links could be removed from Bachir's biography, as well as Mohamed Hamri's. Thank you for attempting to revert to the former entry for Bachir Attar before someone vandalized it. Be assured it was not me. BKLisenbee

Having read the background to this and given User talk:BKLisenbee 's concerns and his/her previous involvement in editing related pages I have a problem accepting his recent edits which are in line with blocked IPs. Blocked for repeated vandalism. I would err on the side of caution re. his claims

Abelelkrim 07:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Raisuni

Please lock the page or at least leave it as Raisuni, not Raisuli. I gave all the sources for the correct name. I read many history books about him. Once again, he's my friend's relative, it's stated in a source I gave... The real name should be kept a the real name. If Americans know it as Raisuli, let it be, we ain't going to put a false name cause of that. Encyclopedia Britannica has it Raisuni. Sabertooth 23:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Holocaust & Genocide

I was hoping that wikipedia may be able to make a section for Holocaust & Genocide as either a project or portal. I thought that it might be part of the Military project of the History section. Looking for assistance with this. Thanks. I would appreciate comments & assistance to be left on my talk page ]. I hope to hear from you soon. Eric Rodrigues.

Hey Eric, concerning your idea for a Holocaust and Genocide WikiProject I think it should have it's own wikiproject. There are quite a few artile to do with Genocides and the Holocaust so a place to call home for them should be beneficial. So I'll support your bid to have this created into a WikiProject. :) Kyriakos 09:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I, too, support your call for a WikiProject - I can't say that I'd contribute much to articles in that field, but here's hoping that a WikiProject will help to set some standards or at least start serious consensus-setting discussions as to what does and does not count as genocide, etc. Good luck! LordAmeth 12:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur w/ everyone. I can help w/ the technicalities (i.e. setting it up). -- FayssalF - 13:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiThanks

- you gave me confidence that Misplaced Pages works! :-) --HappyCamper 13:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Trolls have been indef blocked. ;) -- FayssalF - 13:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Re BKLisenbee re the POV of the User and his continuing editing Jajouka Bachir Attar etc

As BKLisenbee declined to admit that he had POV, though even that post was actually attempting to justify his POV edits by citing some third parties interview.

I have put a few web links that show his POV and a stronger suggestion that he desist from editing Jajouk/Jouka pages. I would be grateful if you would have a look at BKLisenbee Your POV is confirmed by above post and proved on a quick web search on his talk pages

Thanks

Abelelkrim 20:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Karl Meier

Hi Fayssal,

This user doesn't join talk pages and makes sweeping edits to the pages (please see his recent edits to Muhammad or Banu Qurayza). It seems disruptive to me. --Aminz 09:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Amin, he left a note (question) at Muhammad's talk page. As for Banu Qurayza, you can do the same, both of you. -- FayssalF - 10:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal, he doesn't make any arguments. just accusations of POV-pushing; cherry picking etc etc.

On Qurayza, the section is about our sources; not about denial but he wants to push it to the end of the article and rename the heading. --Aminz 10:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just try to respond to comments instead of wiki-lawyering and make desperate attempts to get me banned Aminz? -- Karl Meier 10:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, you wrote, "...push it to the end of the article?"

That is rich. This is a section you just now created, and pushed to the very top of the article. Was there a section I missed called "Aminz' opinion here (to be completed)"? I'm not certain that Karl's section title is encyclopedic, exactly, but it is accurate: it certainly is about denial.Proabivouac 10:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the section on "sources" and their historicity should go at the beginning because the rest of the article is written based on those sources and assumption of their reliability. --Aminz 11:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal, would you please let us know what you think? Is it proper to say place the "Sources for Muhammad's life" section at the end of Muhammad's article? --Aminz 11:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Further, Prof. Hugh Goddard says: "There has been a considerable amount of recent scholarly discussion concerning Muhammad's treatment of the Jews, and especially concerning the historicity or otherwise of the massacre of Banu Qurayza. See W.N. Arafat..."

These should be covered in the sources section. --Aminz 11:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal, Please take a look at history of Talk:Banu Qurayza here: and the way Karl is arguing. It is all nothing but incivility and throwing accusations instead of arguing. --Aminz 11:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Aminz: Could you please spend your time addressing the concerns that I have raised about giving undue weight to the denialist point of view, instead of constantly wiki-lawyering and asking FayssaIF to block me? -- Karl Meier 11:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to block anyone for a content dispute where no one has disrespected wiki policies. However, if mutual accusations persist i'd be ready to do just that. It is time consuming, bothering and disruptive. -- FayssalF - 11:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

O glorified one

I request your excellency's presence on Gtalk. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just sent you an email. -- FayssalF - 13:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)