Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:18, 18 June 2006

archive

Islamic Barnstar Award

Thank you for voting to keep the image for the Islamic Barnstar Award at the May 27 voting page. --JuanMuslim 13:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

An award

question to readers

Is this nn, or should i creat it? Of course, the articel sucks, but im not asking about contents, rather about notability. --Striver 10:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki stalking

Please do not stalk my edits. This is against wiki policy. --Strothra 23:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Im not doning that, im just cheking my watched articles. Are you surprised that i have conspiracy and anti american foreign politics articles on my watch list? Peace. --Striver 23:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what kinds of things you may or may not have in your watchlist. I just wanted to make sure you weren't wikistalking which I believe you probably aren't doing. Just making sure though. --Strothra 23:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, i have not even visited your main page yet. You are welcome back to talk any time. --Striver 23:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks although keep in mind that my main page doesn't exactly give the details of my politics on specific issues which don't neccesarily follow the lines you may assume by reading it. BTW, you may want to keep an eye on your watchlist so that you can put keeps on those articles because I'm putting them up for AfD. Good sportsmanship and all that I guess. --Strothra 23:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning, peace. --Striver 23:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"<Islamic denomination> view of x" vs "<major religion> view of y"_view_of_x"_vs_"<major_religion>_view_of_y"-2006-05-20T23:33:00.000Z">

Islamic denominations are nowhere near as major as...well...a major religion, such as Islam itself. A chosen religion (such as Islam or Christianity) is not as POV as is a faction of that religion (such as Shi'a or Presbyteriansim). Notice how there aren't any pages on "Episcopalian view of z" or "Baptist view of w", or even "Orthodox Jewish view of blahblah". Likewise, I don't feel that there should be any need for "Shi'a view of foo" or "Sunni view of" whatever. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)_view_of_x"_vs_"<major_religion>_view_of_y""> _view_of_x"_vs_"<major_religion>_view_of_y"">

Well, look again:

• Mormon view of Jesus
• Evangelical Christian views of Hanukkah
• Unification Church views of homosexuality

And anyhow, even if you where right that the above article did not exist, i dont agree with you that they should not exist. Why in the worl should the line be drawn there? WHy not call all three worl religions as Abrahamic religions and claim they should not be divided? Is the Bahai faith over the line? They are a Shi'a shootout. And since when does it become POV to have belong to a denominnation, while the religion it self is not POV? Maybe you meant undue weight? No, probobly not. Maybe non-notable? You need to learn what POV means, it means Point Of View, nothing else.--Striver 08:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)_view_of_x"_vs_"<major_religion>_view_of_y""> _view_of_x"_vs_"<major_religion>_view_of_y"">

Striver, here in Misplaced Pages saying "this is POV" is shorthand for "this represents one POV with the exclusion of others", that is, "this violates WP:NPOV". I agree with you that not having a certain kind of articles doesn't mean it's forbidden to create articles of that kind. However, it's important that those articles: 1) do not include original research, 2) are not created just to present a particular POV, especially if that POV is controversial. The relevant guideline here is actually Misplaced Pages:Content forking. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry, that is not the meaning of POV. The meaning of POV is to claim something that is only true from a specific point of view. I know that original research is not wanted here, that is why i source what i write. Regarding your "articles...are not created just to present a particular POV, especially if that POV is controversial", try reading "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them.". Peace. --Striver 18:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: in Misplaced Pages "being POV" is shorthand for "representing only one POV". You needn't quote WP:NPOV. There's a whole section explaining that minority views should receive attention, but not as much attention as majority or generally accepted views. Mind you, this is not a criticism of your articles. I have no knowledge to say whether they're correct or how representative they are. It seems to me that Shi'a views of should be integrated into the articles about , not split apart (= POV forking). But I'm really only here in account of your telling other people to go read the NPOV policy and resorting to defensive language, instead of explaining them why you think the "Shi'a view of..." articles are worthy. Referring to other articles in Misplaced Pages is no good; many articles are unworthy of it and yet persist because nobody notices... —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I finally got around to replying to you. Here we go...

• Mormon view of Jesus--not about the actual view, but about The Living Christ, some declaration thing put out by the Mormons. Therefore it is not OR. Also, the page is titled "The Living Christ".
• Evangelical Christian view of Hannukah--doesn't exist. I tagged it for speedy deletion as empty (which, i might add, it was--it was a broken redirect to nowhere). I don't even know how you found the page, really...
• Unitarian whatever--well, all I can say is that sexuality is a much broader topic than, say, ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib.

--M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 03:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if you ever saw this since your talk page used to be so long, so here it is! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see the end of the Islamic view of Jesus talk page. --Striver 15:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)_view_of_x"_vs_"<major_religion>_view_of_y""> _view_of_x"_vs_"<major_religion>_view_of_y"">

MSASFU

Creating an article on a local branch of an international organization is not a good idea. However, if there isn't already an article on the Muslim Students Association as an *international* organization, there should be. (I think they are in the Islam in the US article, and possibly in other country articles.) But are you sure that you're the one to write it? Can you be neutral? I believe that they're Salafi-leaning, and Salafis don't like Shi'a. Zora 18:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you where right: Muslim Student Association, thx --Striver 20:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Message?

Was wondering why you didn't give a warning on the reversion , which seems to me to have been vandalism. Or was it not vandalism (perhaps harassment?), or didn't warrant placing the message? I think it's too late now; when I place warning templates I do it at the time I do the revert. Шизомби 23:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure what you mean, i assume you mean that i was the victim of vandalism/harassment. In that case, yes,i view it so. Why i didnt complain? Why bother, im routinly harrased, stalked, called idiot, conspiracy-nutbag, Shi'a-extrem-pov-editor, being blocked, the blocking adming breaking not one, but two rules, and nobody caring... If they didnt care then, why should they care now? --Striver 00:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

please tell me your idia

salam

I guess you aren't from the middle east. If I'm right please read these pages(] and ) and tell me your idea. although you don't like this subject probably, but I want to know if these articles show bad view of Muslim's or not. --Sa.vakilian 04:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sistani

please see this, and tell if its a fair way of describing Sistani?--Irishpunktom\ 14:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC) hm... i think that is more of Zereshk's quarter... ill ask him :) --Striver 14:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Will you please stop restoring the personal attacks, and personal remarks that is on Irishpunktoms userpage. Personal attacks is not allowed, and it doesn't matter if it happends on your or anyone else userspace. I don't make any nasty comments about you on my userpage or userspace, so I suggest that you and other members of the "Muslim Guild" stop these violations of Wikipedias NPA policy. -- Karl Meier 12:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

ha. ha. ha. Funny. Really funny to try to make this a "Muslim Guild" issue. And it is equally funny that you are offended considering your user page history. But considering that you have backed of your old user page, ill consider the dispute settled. Happy future editing. --Striver 15:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious that a large number of editors from the Muslim Guild (such as you, Irishpunktom, and Anonymous Editor) like and find it entertaining to make personal attacks, and will revert to protect their existance on userpages such as Irishpunktoms. It's an interesting organization, the Muslim Guild. I also noticed that I and a few other editors has also been singled out for harassment "scrutiny" on the Guilds talkpage. -- Karl Meier 18:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You are giving me way to much credit, those guys you mentined would have voted for kicking me out of wikipedia one year ago. Karl, rember that its me that is supposed to be the conspiratorial one here. Anyhow, i get your point, you feel bad. Ill try to be more nice twords you. As for the other guys, i dont boss over them. --Striver 19:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Moves

Striver, moving the articles to Islamic view of ruins the entire way the articles are written. The articles on their own deserve an article as important prophets not simply a "view" of the Biblical figure. Musa is important on his own as a prophet, not because he is a christian figure. I will keep the Jesus one however. The same discussion will not apply to the other pages. --a.n.o.n.y.m 16:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Salam brother. Ill answer on the Isa talk page. Peace. --Striver 16:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Striver it's not necessary to add that notice to all talk pages. It's fine, it has worked differently for the Isa one, leave other ones as they are since it will only result in too many pov forks. --a.n.o.n.y.m 16:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Bro, the reason im doing this is because i honestly belive that it is wrong to have it this way. We cant have a article named <English name of x> and another one <Arabic name of x>, and then let <English name of x> be about the Judeo chritian view, while the <Arabic name of x> is about the Islamic view. Remeber that Christian Arabs also use <Arabic name of x>.

God vs. savior

"Jesus (pbuh) is maybe not God in my Islamic view, but he is the awaited Savior."

A little off-topic for WP, maybe, but I think this was the original (and, in my view, most legitimate) Christian view of Jesus.Timothy Usher 04:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree with that. But then came the Church... --Striver 07:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sahih Bukhari

Re your comments in Talk:Sahih Bukhari#Zora: You need to stop being so confrontational and pushing your POV. I'm getting tired of receiving reports of your bad behavior, reports that I must address because I'm an admin and have a responsibility. I assume you're a grown-up person, not a child, and you should be able to discuss things properly without creating an edit war in every single page you update with your "Shi'a view of X" trademark. I'm warning you that repeatedly coming close to violating policies counts against you in other people's appreciation. At this point, few would disagree that you should be blocked the next time you do things like you did in Sahih Bukhari (i. e. re-writing the whole article from your personal POV). So tread carefully. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Bro, i did not "re-writing the whole article from your personal POV", it is Zora that messed up the article. How is it that its me that is accused of "re-writing", when it is me that created it to start with? It is Zora that did the re-writing, and i listed my objection to her version there, and i was not the only one to do so, a Sunni editor was not to happy about her edits either. However, i do hear "I'm getting tired of receiving reports of your bad behavior". Next time you get one, inform me of it, and ill see how to respond. In *this* particualr issue, ie Sahih Bukhari, the basic for the complain, ie *me* doing the re-write, is false. --Striver 15:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't WP:OWN an article even if you started it. Zora and others edited the article, and you re-introduced your own content and resisted others' attempts to remove it. It doesn't matter what religious affiliation editors have. If you insist in viewing this as Shi'a POV vs. everyone else's, you'll get into this kind of trouble all the time.

The reports of your behaviour were made by JerseyDevil and you can read some in my talk page. You can also read what I told JD about them. In short, they refer to some of your habits that JD finds annoying, though not in violation of WP policies. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i read about it. I try to take it at heart, but its really hard, since i consider "them" to be a equal, if not a greater pain. But they win, since they are politicaly correct. What im saying is that the feeling of being perceiving as extreamly anoying is mutual.

As for the Sahih Bukhari article, i dont claim ownership of it, i have added every single thing that Zora wants in it, and i even have made edits that Zora did not aprove of, but the Sunni editor demaned to have included. this is not a question of ownership, this is a good old content dispute. I have given a long and detailed arguemnt of why i deem the hadith list to be relevant to the article, and i perceive Zoras arguement to be lacking. She does have a good point some times, but she does not have one in this issue. Zora sometimes insist on having things her way just because she wants it, no mater the facts. If you want, ill give you as many examples as you want. --Striver 16:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why Muslim Guild?

I am member of both Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Islam as well as the Muslim Guild. I also do not know that why the Muslim Guild is created? Should not be it merge with Islam project? --- Faisal 03:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, i dont have a good answer. I dont know if there is a good answer or not, i just dont have one. Maybe its just becaus i woke up 2 minutes ago... --Striver 07:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

hehe, I like that answer. The Muslim guild has an ability to deal with things which affect muslims, such as the religion of Islam - which is shared by Muslims, but also things which affect Muslims which have little bearing on the religions - such as the role of Women in Muslim societies, or Hujum, or Paranji, etc, etc. --Irishpunktom\ 14:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

POV pusher

Your nonsense is never going to go in the 9/11 articles. Never. If you continue to misuse wikipedia resources, you'll end up at arbcom and there will be dozens of people that will contribute to seeing you blocked from editing those types of articles. In all liklihood, there may also be an end to the fighting you also engage in on the Moslem related articles as well. You create POV forks constantly, spam other POV pushers with similar nonsense POV pushing agendas and have been incivil more times than I can count. There really isn't much more to say, aside from the fact that we can ignore you some, but in the end, if you continue, we will do what we have to do.--MONGO 18:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, lets pretend its only me... --Striver 19:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:AmericaDeceived.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:AmericaDeceived.gif. Misplaced Pages gets hundreds 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. 01:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Striver

Thanks Striver, I am currently working on "Criticism of Islam" article. One problem I used to have there is that I don't have online access to the shia authentic Hadiths. I prefer to sometimes quote from Shia sources rather than always quoting from Bukhari, etc. Also, regarding tafsirs, I do have access to Tafsir Nemooneh and part of Al-Mizan but that's not enough. I would be thankful if you could help me. --Aminz 04:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a bit of trouble finding good Shi'a sources as well.... try this List of Shi'a books, but ill doubt it will help. Peace --Striver 09:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Internal spamming

For your information (once again, you have been told this many many times before): internal spamming to stack discussions is not appropriate on Misplaced Pages. I advise you to stop it. Not invent excuses for doing it. Yes, including helping others do it. Weregerbil 17:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Since when is that "internal spaming"? Spaming implies multiple messages, not one single one. --Striver 17:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I promise I kid you not.

Your answer would be an example what I meant with " not invent excuses for doing it."

As to multiple messages: . See User:Raphael1's edit history; I didn't bother look for more. And the last one is to a project page for many people to see.

I strongly suggest you accept that trying to affect discussions by inviting people of a given POV is not allowed. If you are unwilling to accept that, would you prefer we take this issue in front of a larger group of editors to discuss? Weregerbil 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If Raphael1 whent to other editors before going to the guild is nothing that i either knew or feel i need to be concerned of. What is the idea of a project if not to co-operate and having a centralized place for people intrested in a given topic? Take a look at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Religion, dont you think they inform eachother there regarding votings and such? Bro, im sure you mean it in good faith, but i find the idea of a wikiproject aimed at coordinating efforts, BUT as long as we dont inform eachother as a... nonsensical notion. If you feel there is to many people holding a certain pov, then join and make it more neutral in your view. --Striver 18:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Still you persist on making excuses. Please be mindful that you really do not have special permission to spam. I suggest in the future you do not attempt to sway consensus by spamming. Not once. You have now filled this editor's patience to the very limit. Weregerbil 18:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, you know what? Show me a single wikipedia policy that makes clear that informing people on a wikiproject is "Spaming" and i will stop informing people on wikiprojects. Until then, im sorry, i cant accept your position.--Striver 18:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view. From WP:SPAM. Remember seeing that here? Would you prefer we take this issue in front of a larger group of editors to discuss? Weregerbil 18:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the headline of the section from whre you got that quote: "By internal spamming, we mean cross-posting of messages to a large number of user talk pages, by Wikipedians, in order to promote Misplaced Pages matters such as elections, disputes, discussions, etc. It also includes the use of a custom signature to automatically append some promotional message to every signed post. I see three things: 1) "cross-posting". It is not cross-posting to add a single note on a wikiproject. 2) "a large number". It is not "a large number" to add a single note on a wikiproject. 3) "user talk pages". It is not "user talk pages" to add a single note on a wikiproject. It does seem like we are not going anywhere with this, feel invited to bring a neutral and non-involved admin to give input on this dispute. Peace. --Striver 18:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Striver,

I feel your insistence you are allowed to sway consensus by inviting editors of a specific POV is untenable. After consulting with fellow editors, I feel compelled to inform you that should you persist, and cannot be otherwise convinced, the next time this happens I shall request input on such behaviour from a larger audience, viz. using the Requests for comment procedure. I do wish you would stop without such measures, but I am at a loss as how to convince you otherwise. Wikilawyering and making excuses are not the solution. Weregerbil 19:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I do take some of your critique at heart, the next time im going to advertise a afd for a 9/11 issue, ill make sure ill inform a equal amount of people of each pov. If that is what you mean, i get the point, ill try to remeber it. But if your point is that Islam-related topics should not be advertised in the Muslim guild, im sorry, i simply do not agree. Anyhow, thanks for your good faith atemp at comunicating, and im sorry its not resulting in you beeing pleased. Honestly. --Striver 19:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I advise you not to invite anyone to any AfD. Not even if you invite equal numbers in pursuit of "no consensus, no keep". Here it is again a simple as it gets: no internal spamming. AfDs are consensus building discussions, not competitions of who has the largest number of biased people they can invite by whatever means. This is how I see things; and I will ask for outside opinions if you do it again, no matter what excuse or wikilawyering trick you invent. Weregerbil 19:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to find the policy, but failed, but im quite sure that it is perfecly ok to inform other people intrested in the subject that a afd is in proces. Alhtough i did not find the text in my short search, are you disputing its existens? --Striver 19:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to see Misplaced Pages:Spam if you have not already. I know that user:Schuminweb was blocked recently for doing something similar. You may wish to see his talk page for a discussion with admins about it. --Strothra 19:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a quote i found that refelcts exactly what im trying to say: Schuminweb, do you agree not to spam talk pages for "votes"? If you want to get the attention of people in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anti-war, why not just post at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anti-war?. See? Talk page= not good, WikiProject = Good. Do you dissagree? --Striver 19:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I would not suggest you use that as an excuse. Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view. No matter where you put the invitations. I suggest no wikilawyering, no tricks to get around it, and no excuses. This is only my opinion of course. Weregerbil 20:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel we are not going any further. Anyhow, thanks for talking with me. --Striver 20:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Striver, a WikiProject is people gathering to write and/or improve articles about a certain topic, regardless of their particular POVs. In fact, a WikiProject conceived to enforce a certain POV in articles is a violation of the spirit of Misplaced Pages, even if that's not in a policy, which you request so forcefully. Pay attention to what others are saying to you (including the reasons given for the recent deletion of your "9/11 is government POV" project) and don't make more excuses. Policies in WP are based in consensus, and the consensus is more or less clear (even for those that voted "keep" in your project's MfD) that it's not a good idea to do what you did. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Pablo-flores, the Muslim guild is open to anyone, we even remade the front project page since it made some non-musilms to feel un-invited. If people complain that posting a message there is recruting equals bringin the atention of people of a certain pov, what is the ideal solution in your opinion: a) Forbiding people to post on that project b) Have people of diferent povs enter the project? --Striver 18:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

lol

Guys, take a look: mfd --Striver 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hadith of Persians and knowledge

I am not knowledgeable in this area so the best I could hope to offer is that you use mainstream and reliable sources for your information, expand on areas as you can and I can help with typos or make suggestions as to how to format things some.--MONGO 00:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

All you can do is the best you can do...nobody is paying you, so if you want to expand the article, its much like working on any term paper or college level thesis...you have to research the information and cite reliably published references. I see no problem with adding common knowledge, just be prepared to defend that information with a reference that is reliable. WP:V--MONGO 09:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i get it. My aim is to raise some of the "hadith of..." articles to "good article" standard, but it will take some effort. Thanks for helping! Peace. --Striver 09:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I clicked over to the English version and it appears fine to me...has many sublinks...also the Alexa page has links to other reference sources as well. Again, I am no authority at all on the topic of Islam. Peace be with you.--MONGO 10:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Pointless unproductive stub creation

Striver, why are you creating pointless mini-stub articles without much likelihood of valid expansion, yet again one more time??? You have been warned about this MANY MANY times before in the past, yet you always continue down this same path regardless of the warnings that MANY MANY people have given you on MANY MANY occasions. "R-H-M" is the stupidest pointless mini-stub you've created yet -- there's no valid reason to create this article unless there were a plausible chance that there would be a whole series of informative articles about a number of Arabic triconsonantal roots -- something which is extremely unlikely to happen any time in the forseeable future. For this reason, I'm redirecting R-H-M to "Basmala" (i.e. بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم ). If you want to link between Rahman (name) and/or Abd-al-Rahman (name) and/or Basmala that's up to you, but please don't create any more pointless mini-stubs on triconsontal roots (unless you actually have something worth saying about them). AnonMoos 23:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You meant like S-L-M and Ḥ-M-D, whom both are included in the Category:Triconsonantal roots and are edited by people like User:Dbachmann and user:Benne? Please stop with the questioning my work in such a threatening tone without bothering to even check the categories, before exlaiming ""R-H-M" is the stupidest pointless mini-stub you've created yet -- there's no valid reason to create this article unless there were a plausible chance that there would be a whole series of informative articles about a number of Arabic triconsonantal roots". --Striver 23:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Striver, I've really lost all patience with your endless antics and pointless rotating of the hamster wheel on Misplaced Pages -- add some basic correct information to R-H-M (something which it's conspicuously lacking in the form in which you left it) or leave it as a redirect. AnonMoos 23:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Happy? --Striver 00:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sahaba's ancestors

Hi. Hope you're doing well. I think it is worthy of being kept because ever since I got here Misplaced Pages has been moving more and more towards including just about anything. The fact that we can write about these people 1400 years later (even if only from traditions) makes me tend to believe they are as notable as some minor internet fad of today. I also think keeping things like this will help to stop some Misplaced Pages:Recentism. I can't say that I know if the list is accurate or not... so this is presuming it is accurate. I would say you created a messy situation... you have this article, First Muslim Dynasty, and the family tree of many people... I think some of them should be merged (in fact look at First Muslim Dynasty, it has 5 merge requests on it). So, I would say it's useful but probably under another name. Maybe it should replace the Family tree of Muhammad.... or it should become part of Qurayshi lineage. I'm not sure (I don't like the name Sahaba's ancestors). But, I do agree that the content seems relevant somewhere. If you put this on Deletion Review link me to it so I can comment. Thanks. gren グレン 09:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for you comments, i appreciate it. As for the "situation", this is my prefered solution: The "Sahabas ancestor" article tries to tie together the families, and not go into details such as wives, cousins and such, unless they are extremly notable wives, and rather try to "tie everything together". If you look, "Sahabas ancestor" actualy ties together the Banu Hashim, Banu Ummayad and the tribe of Zubayr together down to their common ancestor. That scope is to large for the "Family tree of x" article, those article try to give a full and comprehensive view, as detailed as possible, focusing on the individual, so we but all wives and children there, even if they dont have a article. Now, JD started his deletion spree witouth caring, and it ended in merging some trees into First Muslim Dynasty. They didnt consider that once all trees are finished, the First Muslim Dynasty will be a total mess, imposible to navigate, and way to large. That is why i advocate each tree having its own article, and each entry on each tree linking to other tree, in the same way as Muhammad has a link to his tree in the Family tree of Abu Bakr. Anyhow, no information is lost in merging to First Muslim Dynasty, so i did'nt make an issue of it, it will eventualy go back to each one having its own tree. --Striver 09:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Real.jpg

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

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 15:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Arthur anime2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Arthur anime2.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 19:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Page advertisement

Once you have created another unencylopedic cruft, at least, keep it to yourself instead of spoiling other articles by advertising it. Pecher 18:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And why is that unencylopedic? That statment made me quite angry. Do not remove legitimate links. --Striver 18:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Striver, Tribes of Arabia during Muhammad's era is a list with a rather dubious title and raison d'être. Please desist the urge to insert links to it into the intro of the legitimate articles. Banu Qurayza, let alone Quraysh, were not "tribes of Muhammad" era, they had existed long before and, in the case of Quraysh, long after Muhammad. Pecher 17:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, ill rename it. --Striver 20:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Arabian tribes that interacted with Muhammad, better? --Striver 20:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There happen to be some Jewish tribes, too. Pecher 20:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wherent they Arabian tribes? What is your prefered name? --Striver 20:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, Arabian accepted. Shouldn't there be a word "list" in the title? This is a list, actually. Pecher 21:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I just expanded it to be a non-stub article. Feel free to add to it. --Striver 21:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What unique content do you expect to add there? Pecher 21:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Not much of unique content, but rather kind of a "tribe-centric view" of the life of Muhammad. All along i conduct my stuidies in Islamic history, i come accross of different tribe names that i have never heard of, or have dificulty to keep in mind, and that article is a suitabe place to have a introduction to the general location of the tribes, and a general introductino to their doings and politics. A good place to knit the all together --Striver 21:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what lists are for, don't you think? Pecher 07:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, i would say that the article has more infor than just a list would have.... --Striver 07:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Abraham/Ibrahim

Well thanks for the notice, i have proposed the merger on the Hebrew Bible page aswell. Its just ridiculous having 3 pages about the same person!

Your Name

You don't have to be so defensive. BhaiSaab 23:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you mean? I dont understand... --Striver 00:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, akhee. BhaiSaab 00:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yazid I

Can you take a look at some of the recent edits of this article, and tell me if they're just additions or POV? I don't know much about Islamic history, but some of it seems debatable (i.e. changing "Battle" to "Massacre").--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ikiroid beat me to it. --Striver 14:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I removed a little, but take a look at all the other things (See the current additions made by anons, with my NPOVization). It's a bit....I don't know the word....suspicious maybe? None of it is cited, and additions like the following seem suspect:

This view is mainly taken by those who are concerned about the impact it would have on Muawiyah's judgement in placing his son as caliph. Although the notion of remaining silent, when considering the wrongfull actions of any individual, runs counter to the central tenets of Islamic thought the Sunni's nonetheless have held fast to equivocating over the actions of Yazid.

It seems a bit Anti-Sunni, of course it may just be badly worded. I see that you are muslim, so if this is relatively common knowledge in Islamic history perhaps you could verify it, and I may be over-reacting over nothing.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well its a hard topic, its contoversial to the point that even known facts are disputed. For example, its fairly common that Yazid was a open drunk, but there are people that try to pretend he was not. It will take a lot of effort to NPOV that page and im not ready to commit myself to that. Im sorry for not being for more help, but i have tried to get somewhere with that article in the past, and did not get any succes. My advice is that you be bold and dont be to affraid of messing the article up, its not much to have anyway in my very personal view. Or even better, go to the articles talk page. Sorry, and peace!--Striver 09:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand, and I am impressed by your self-discipline to avoid articles which you may be biased towards, and to admit it. I will try to npovize the article to the best of my ability if someone hasn't already. Till we meet again, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, dont get me more credit than im worth, its not so much about not wanting to get involved where i know im biased, i do that all the time, its more about commiting to do edits that will survive longer than the next revert. --Striver 23:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you'd be surprised. Ed Poor didn't know where to stop....he got de-cratted, de-sysopped, the whole thing.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Islam and criticism

In your most recent edit summary on the Islam article (this diff), you said the article "has already a critisism section". I don't see anything like that in the table of contents to the Islam article, all I find is a bare link in the "See also" section to another article. Your summary also contrasted to the Christianity article, which does have a section entitled "Controversies" that then references Criticism of Christianity as the daughter article for the subject. Am I missing something, or are these not currently as parallel as your summary makes it sound? GRBerry 20:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I was misstaken, i remebered an old disscotion about the same topic, and i wrongfully assumed that the old solution was intakt. I still belive that terrorism stuff does not belong as a article section as long as there is no entire section about the crusades on christianity. However, if there is a critisim or similar section lacking in the Islam article, it needs to be added. --Striver 21:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Sometimes I'm blind, but I'd hate to be that far off when I'm responding to a RFC and take my time before responding. GRBerry 22:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, peace! --Striver 09:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Mutaween

As salam alaikum. Have a look at mutaween - there is a lot of anti-Muslim bias here and this term is connected mainly with Saudi state, but some people are trying to expand it to the entire Muslim world! AlMuslimeen 05:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wa aleikom as salam! Yeah, wikipedia is big, and we have all sort of people here. I posted yout comment here where people more experienced with the term can take a look. Peace!--Striver 09:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

ANI

Just to let you know, you are being discussed on the AN/I in relation to User:FairNBalanced. User:FairNBalanceds description of the marines victim, the same image as contained on your Userpage, as a terrorist, and other distasteful, even hateful, images and commentary led to him being blocked. Folks are comparing that commantary with the one on your userpage. Also, please check out my WP:RFAR. --Irishpunktom\ 10:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the info, i asked a admin regarding my user page. Also, thanks for notifying me about the RFAR. --Striver 14:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Seen your additions to the RFAR - thanks! Also - E-Mail me! --Irishpunktom\ 23:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Just wrote what i viewd as accurate. --Striver 23:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I replied to your E-mail, but, i got a reply telling me it failed! -

"Final-Recipient: rfc822;**********@hotmail.com Action: failed Status: 5.5.0 Diagnostic-Code: smtp;550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable (1171782072:1364:-2147467259") --Irishpunktom\ 15:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahmed

Article Ahmed is human name disambiguation, please do not revert the edit without discussing why is it not disambiguation in article talk page, also please check other Common name articles eg : John ,George, Simon, Wilson,Elizabeth. hope it helps :) --Sartaj beary 00:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey btw Abdul is article --Sartaj beary 00:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

from Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)

Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are, like redirects, non-article pages in the article namespace. Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Misplaced Pages articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term.

I read that to say that since the article contains information beyond was is intended for "solely" "allow users to choose among several Misplaced Pages articles", its is more that a "non-article". Its is in fact, a article. As for the other dabs, maybe they should be remade to name articles instead, that is, if they provide anything more than "solely" "allow users to choose among several Misplaced Pages articles". Abdul is a article? I can only see a redirect... --Striver 00:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, even if it where only a dab, its more than *just* a human name dab.--Striver 00:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Category marked for deletion

You may be interested.

Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_16#Category:People_killed_by_or_on_behalf_of_Muhammad

BhaiSaab 00:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)