Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:34, 17 January 2010

Hi, this is my discussion page. Do not hesitate to leave message for me.

Negev Bedouins

Hi. Sorry, but I don't know of any free sources for images. Aside from that, I was wondering whether the title should be Negev Bedouins rather than Negev bedouins? Number 57 20:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, someone else came in and moved it whilst we were having this conversation :) Number 57 20:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I apologize however, for not consulting the two of you first. I had no idea the title was being discussed. Cheers -- Al Ameer son 19:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't - I believe you either have to have the owner's permission to use them in any form of media or to own them yourself in order to satisfy the criteria (and as far I see on the page there is no permission granted to use them elsewhere). For more see WP:IMAGE. Number 57 20:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Bad naqib.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bad naqib.jpg. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 22:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

Finally, someone actually doing productive edits on the Taj article! It get's bombed daily by P.N. Oak theorists and Friends of gays - "david is a fag" etc. etc. We've been doing a bit of a holding exercise on it for a while now. I've been rewriting a fully referenced version of it in my userspace here User:Joopercoopers/Taj Mahal/restructure - It's still not finished and is too long, so it needs pruning and I think probably splitting into a main article and a Architecture of the Taj Majal article. I thought I'd let you know before you spent too much energy 'sorting' the mainspace article out. There's no point in two people doing the same thing - I'd suggest, if you like, working on the restructure - the tomb description needs rewriting, there's a section on how it influenced European art and architecture - notions of the picturesque etc. - There's some more to be written about "The taj today and the future" - I'm going to provide a fully annotated plan - There's a section on the plinth and terrace to finish - and then adding appropriate images and a final copyedit. --Joopercoopers 17:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

good job

Good work on the an-Nisa:34 page. MezzoMezzo 20:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Salam 'alaik akhi, i've noticed more recent edits by you. Keep up the good work! MezzoMezzo 18:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edits in History of Islam in the United States‎

Could you provide quotes in the references your are using so that we can see exactly what the authors have written.--CltFn 05:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Islam by Country

Hey, glad to have you on board. Any help you can give on the discussion board would be greatly appreciated. We are in the midst of trying to formalize one main source and have a seperate column dedicated to other sources. Up to now the consensus has been to use the CIA World Factbook. Recently, however, people are wildly editing the article without participating in the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TS Brumwell (talk • contribs) 00:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Second Barbary War

The British Empire is not the official title of the United Kingdom of Great Britann. The Act of Union occured in 1800 and so from 1800 onwards, the entities that was informally known as the "British Empire" became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Note that British Empire is not an official or formal term used by the UK.

Respectfully, Tourskin 07:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Kanzul Iman

Thanks! It's a problem. Kanzul Iman is highly notable and important as a Qur'an translation, but the article has been started by an editor whose native language is clearly not English and who doesn't understand how Misplaced Pages's neutrality or sourcing works. Your help is very gratefully received. Gordonofcartoon 00:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Bin Baaz

Hey, I noticed your recent edit to the Bin Baaz page. In regard to him declaring bin Laden to be a khariji, that was actually included in the two previous references in which he also spoke about the treaty of hudaibiyyah, if I am not mistaken. I can see where you're coming from though as it looks almost like POV. I'll leave this one up to you, that article has been a major POV/DE magnet so i'm willing to defer if established/fair users (you being one of those) makes a change. MezzoMezzo 20:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Salam

Thank you for Your Work for Kanzul Iman. i have not Created Featured Artilces but Artiles with some Pictures. If they Interest to You plz help me in Improving.Shabiha 21:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)User:Shabiha User talk:Shabiha

Gecko

You removed a relevant quote of Muhammad here which I've restored now. --Matt57 18:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Kashmir map

Your map of Kashmir needs a little fixing. The Demchok area should be shown in a different color, as that area is administered by India and claimed by China, not the other way around as is presently shown. Also, the spelling "Shaksam" for that area is a mistake. The correct spelling is "Shaksgam." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atelerix (talk • contribs) 16:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Islam in Rwanda

On 1 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Islam in Rwanda, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

History of the Qu'ran

Sir, Ka'Jong agrees with renaming the article "Origin and development of the Qur'an." What are the procedures for a rename? Ka'Jong has made more comments on the article's talk page. Ka'Jong (Ka'Talk) 15:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

Yeah, sorry it was an edit conflict. I thought I'd put your edits back in, but obviously not. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No, my bad. I thought I fixed it when I undid the revision. Oh well, its back now. Happy editing! --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Note

Just thought I'd give a good word for your efforts on 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Cheers, Jaakobou 22:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Re

Regarding this edit . This was discussed on talk first, here. Users raised concerns about using Hamas as a reliable source. In addition we'd also have to concede that only 10 killed so far have been Hamas militants, and that 2 Israeli soldiers have been captured. Thus, it was agreed that this should be attributed. However, the infobox is not the place for length attributions, so I moved it (not remove it) from the infobox.VR _talk 23:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually good point regarding the jpost article. However, the attribution following the line on Egyptian casualties "(by Hamas)" is essential for reasons of clarity. Avaya1 (talk)

International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict

Hi, I noticed that you re-instated the comments I removed from the Australia reaction. The reason I removed them was because the section title is "Official Reactions". Since the content I removed were the remarks of 2 politicians, and not the official reaction of Australia, I removed it. In any event, I've posted a note on the talk page of the article so please add in your comments. Thanks! shirulashem (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputable changes in article on Israel-Hamas conflict

Dear Vice Regent. Why do you ignore the discussion and make changes again and again?
And some more specific commentary:
1. To mention the reaction of hackers together with attacks on Israelies/Jews as being 'interpreted' as related to the conflict, is clearly a mistake. The attacks are interpreted, but the reactions of the hackers were specific to the conflict.

2. You make it sound as though the protester was murdered in cold blood, while actually he was shot during a clash between soldiers and Palestinian youth.

In general I would like to warn you to make changes only after and in accordance with the discussions, and to maintain an objective tone of writing. Debresser (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk page

I have raised concerns about several of your edits on Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict (see "removal of man killed" and "unrelated events"). Please respond before continuing.VR _talk 18:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, please respond to my comment on Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Reactions so that we can implement the discussed solution ASAP.VR _talk 00:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with your real-life. Sometimes it can, esp. when not tended to, get more complicated than wikipedia. :-P VR _talk 01:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure anything gets more complicated than Misplaced Pages. lol Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

Can we discuss the ICRC issue on Talk:International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#International Committee of the Red Cross? --JensMueller (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure.VR _talk 22:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Casualties chart

File:Gaza-Israel war casualties.png

I don't think I will have much of a problem finding daily sources for the number of dead and wounded. But any help is appreciated. I found the number of Israeli wounded by looking at the references for the infobox in the article.

I can't seem to find a source for the higher number of Palestinian wounded, so I used the lower number of 2000 that I found. I see 2700 listed here and there, but they don't say where the number came from.

I may use the 2470 number from here:

• http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2009_01_05_english.pdf

which I found listed here:

• http://www.ochaopt.org/

It says the 2470 number came from the Gaza MoH (Ministry of Health, I assume).

But I would prefer to use a mainstream news source mentioning it. Maybe the mainstream news sources ARE getting their number from there. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the energy to do a daily breakdown. B'tselem will do that eventually. They keep a list of every person killed on both sides with info on the date and cause of death. See also the reference links at Second Intifada#Casualties to see other sources.

I broke down the sources at File:Gaza-Israel war casualties.png and explained where each number came from. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What is it your business to tell me that

هل تعتقد أنهم سوف يحبك أزيد؟ أنهم سوف يحبك لو كنت ميتا

أني أقرب لك اني أحسن لك

Don't put me down and make people go against me. --Learsi si natas (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

it is okay, maybe i was a little harsh in my reaction but it is an emotional subject. i don't know why I can't edit. I am a new member and there is a semi-lock on the article, so maybe that is the reason. -Learsi si natas (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Undo

With all due respect I'd like to undo this edit of yours. I can understand your concerns, but I fear some idiot will come, call the source "wrong" and remove the claim. Using 6 sources, instead of one re-enforces the claim. Also the way I've used it, it doesn't at all, clutter up the space.VR _talk 22:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox of Gaza conflict

See talk page of article, left a message with my opinion on the matter.16:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)BobaFett85 (talk) I have stated my opinion on the discussion page in the section Infobox inclusions.BobaFett85 (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Arabic name

Unfortunately, and shamefully, I cannot read or write Arabic, but I could speak it like an Arab. However, if you mean "am I familiar with the fact that the problem keeps coming up", then yes... I am. I already submitted my comment on one of the older discussions on the topic, but I see it has come up again. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Oops, thought you were talking about the recurring interwiki problem. My bad. Yes, I'll submit my comment now. Apologies... --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone's just stuffed up the formatting at 2008-9 Gaza conflict

Or am I affected by a post-prandial port. If not, do you no anyone who might be able to reestablish the readable format? (I suspect a nowiki sign is responsible, but am no techie). Thanks Nishidani (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Phew, whatever I saw, if I saw it, has been fixed. Sorry for the bother.Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Delivery

In this edit, (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?oldid=263519159), you deleted relevant content. Maybe you were trying to shorten the article, but the effect of your summary is to hide the references and the details, which are relevant to discussions of whether Israel is interfering with aid deliveries. I restored the section to its previous condition. Please post your comments on the talk page before deleting any more content. Thanks. --Cbdorsett (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Zeitoun

Deleted repetition on the issue. See if you approve my version. Also I'd appreciate it if you be more tolerant towards my English and don't qoute my errors. I'm not a native English speaker, and also, spelling and grammar mistakes are irrelevant as to the contents of an argument. Considering the fact that I am not a native English speaker, I think I am not doing to bad.--Omrim (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Just been getting frustrated with the circular discussions. Once I think it was settled it comes back up, but I know I should have just calmed down for second. Thanks for the message. Nableezy (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Policemen

The number we use for militant dead is a number provided by the IDF, and the IDF includes policemen in that toll, plain and simple, I don't get what your problem is with that.BobaFett85 (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Who said that I did them without talk, I talked to Timeshifter and he and I agreed. Listen, whatever your problem is with me you can not deny the fact that the IDF considers Hamas policemen as terrorists and count them in their reports of the numbers of dead. So, in reality, when you put the number 138 beside the 400-650 number in the infobox you duplicate the numbers of dead. Their place is not beside the 400-650 number but in the notes section. I even went as far and stated that the 400-650 numbers is not for militants but for fighters as some people have a problem with puting the cops in the category of militants. If you want I can even change the name from fighters to combatants, but at the end of the day they don't belong in the main part of the infobox, because most of them, if not all, were Hamas operatives, or potential Hamas operatives, seeing as 40 who died were recruits.BobaFett85 (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, see the talk page then, new section added.BobaFett85 (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Made one final compromise proposal, see talk page, and please agree to this, please. I realy went all out with this one.BobaFett85 (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You did it again

On January 9. See your revision.

Breaking promises is a problem of the Arabs of Gaza too. Debresser (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

words to avoid: terrorist / freedom fighter

Could you please place a quick comment here? Thanks. Grey Fox (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

When editing highly active pages such as 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, please use edit summaries so that users can tell at a glance what changes you have made. When the page is being edited so frequently, keeping track of edits becomes difficult without summaries. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Negev Bedouin

Hi Vice Regent! You are certainly not expected to go out of your way to do research for statements you find controversial, but it really doesn't look good when the source exists in another Misplaced Pages article following the exact same statement (in Arab citizens of Israel), and you still remove the information. The given sentence was not necessarily a BLP violation, and when removing any kind of information from controversial articles, you should always go to the talk page anyway.

The edit was especially suspicious when just one edit before that, you added a quote by David Ben-Gurion and cited an extremely anti-Israel source (I will address that part when I have time). In the meantime, please try to keep a balanced WP:NPOV perspective. -- Ynhockey 04:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Muslim Students Assoc.

Hey, hope all is well. You never modified the Muslim Students Assoc. article as discussed. The quality right now is very shoddy and what I had written would at least improve it to some legitimacy to prevent abuse which seems to be constant on it.

SecularHumanist2014

Hi User Vice regent

I have left a note for you

at the end of a section of

Talk:Mahmud of Ghazna

Intothefire (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Compassdirect?

I just weighed in at WP:RSN in needing more info on how Compassdirect was to be used and in which article. Please respond at RSN. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Human rights of Saudi Arabia

Hi! Regarding this edit, you did not explain in the edit summary why you removed the template, and you marked the edit as minor. I reverted it because I don't know the argument you have in why you don't want the template there. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

ADL

In general, I am very little fond of "Criticism" sections in articles. And in specific, the throwaway line about Council on American-Islamic Relations and Nation of Islam, doesn't strike me as adding much to the ADL article. However, neither of those makes any sense at all in the "Ethnic groups" section, since neither organization has anything to do with ethnic groups. If you want to delete the sentence outright, I don't mind, but if it exists, it belongs under "Criticism". LotLE×talk 22:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vice

Hi there! I haven't noticed till today one of your July discussions on Human Abdomen article. I wanted also, you to teach me please, how to make a notice on a user page (your page this time) regarding a discussion started on another page. Our example will be my dealing doubt. I wanted to let you a notice about my discussion started on Human Abdomen discussion page. Thanks and wish ya' Happy Holidays! --TudorTulok (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Some help

Asalam-o-Alaikum I need your help.My Ip and user is blocked.My user was blocked two weeks ago.And i cant make another user because whenever imade another user that new user also blocked by a man name Nick-D.http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Nick-D I dont know why he block me, what he want. Edit button on all those articles which i used were removed.So i write informations in discussion of that article.But Nick-D block my IP and remove that information. Like on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29 i update the coalation casualities but as edit button removed and i cant discus it on discussion page so i cnt update the page.I update coalaion casualities by this page. http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/index.aspx and i also refrennce it. I was also update some sub-articles of that page but now i cant update any of that page because whenever i edit or discuss or writ anything in any page my ip blocked. Allah-Hafiz.