Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot05:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Before marking images as {{no source}}, please take minimal effort to trace the source yourself. When dealing with images of some company, for example, please check that company's web site. Eli Falk08:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose I should do that in the future, as it appears several of the images you tagged were quite easy to find (although, for what it's worth, I was tied up doing some homework and didn't have a whole lot of time on my hands). Anyway, my apologies, and thanks for taking care of the sources for those images. -- tariqabjotu11:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello Jotu, I'm curious... I seem to recall durinig editing on Muhammad that you were inclined to remove the see also link to the Seal of the Prophets article which as I recall you did because it was a bit too glorifying. Can you tell me why the Seal of the Prophets article is so contested as it appears to be? Thanks. (→Netscott)16:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't made substantial edits to the Muhammad article in a very long time; I don't remember removing the link, let alone why I removed the link in the first place. -- tariqabjotu16:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response, I invite you to respond here if you'd prefer. How do you like to be addressed on Misplaced Pages now, as Tariq? I researched the phrase Seal of the Prophets and I better understand it now. Thanks again. (→Netscott)16:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello again Tariq, I've started a new article about Saudi Arabia's first feature film: Keif al-hal?. I invite you to contribute to it if such an article might interest you. Thanks. :-) (→Netscott)02:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi!
Sorry about uploading those files without specifying where I took them from. I did my best to fix that. However I still have a problem with the image Image:Yair Lapid.jpg. I took it from the Russian Misplaced Pages and I don't know which license it is under.
Thank you so much, Tariqabjotu, for your support in my RfA, which passed on November 11, 2006, with a final tally of 82/0/2. I am humbled by the kind support of so many fellow Wikipedians, and I vow to continue to work and improve with the help of these new tools. Should you have any request, do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Húsönd21:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Request
Hi Tariqabjotu,
There is a dispute over reliability of sources mentioned here . I think they are reliable but Opiner thinks they are not. I am trying to form a consensus. Would you please let me know what changes should be applied to this section so that you agree with its addition (to *reformer* section here or to some other article). Thanks very much. I would like to chat with editors individually and when a consensus is achieved, request them to comment on the talk page that they agree with the section. --Aminz22:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
First, I think the inclusion of the full titles of sources (e.g. William Montgomery Watt, Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the Unviversity of Edinburgh) in the text is unnecessary. If the credentials of the source needs to be mentioned (and due to the edit war and overall volatile nature of the Muhammad article, they should), they can be placed in the footnotes. Additionally, I question the neutrality of the first paragraph at all because, although I'm sure these things were truly said by these sources, it appears to be a bit lopsided. I see a couple paragraphs essentially praising Muhammad for his treatment of animals (and even a statement that appears to denounce Christianity for it's anthropocentric views), but no contrary opinion. If I weren't too knowledgeable the subject (and, to be honest, I'm not), I'd want to know more about that contrary opinion, especially due to the last paragraph —
However, in Muslim culture hyena, bat, gecko, snake, and other reptiles as well as insects are considered to be ugly, dangerous, vicious, but also powerful and often ambivalent. While scorpion is considered as an ebodiment of demons and evil spirits.
— which seems to get short-changed, drowned out by the positive analysis of Muhammad and Islam. I'm not sure what you mean when you say (to *reformer* section here or to some other article), but I must say that reading the current Reforms section, to me, is quite painful as it appears that you all tried too hard to make everything verifiable. The lengthy quotes and long titles of scholarly distinction really are unnecessary (or at least not in the body).
Your source from the professor at UC-Berkeley is okay (but not very good), unless there is contradictory evidence (in which case it would not be good at all). The professor appears to be an expert in engineering, a field far from Islamic and Near Eastern history, and so I would prefer a better source. But again, I don't see it as a significant issue. The second and third sources seem fine, and I really don't know much about the fourth source to say it's great (although the fact that it was published by an established publisher makes me optimistic). -- tariqabjotu00:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your reply. "Additionally, I question the neutrality of the first paragraph at all because, although I'm sure these things were truly said by these sources, it appears to be a bit lopsided." It might be but the sources I've seen agree on that. If someone brings sources contradicting it, we can include them as well. I hope that sentence doesn't mean you would like to add a POV tag to the section :P The last sentence was added by User:TruthSpreader. I'll try to read the source myself. Thanks again for your feedback. BTW, article Reformations under Islam is just started. --Aminz01:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
If you could help with reducing over-verifiability of the article Reformations under Islam, I would be thankful. I am not good in english and furthermore have engaged in revert wars recently; whatever I do, with high probability it will be reverted a couple of times. --Aminz01:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
I understand why you voted against my RfA, but I beg you to reconsider. I have now expanded my answer to question (1), and as for the confusion with the RfA interface itself, that was largely due to my having no experience with that particular page and the idiosyncratic way that it works; that shouldn't impede my ability to be a good editor or a good admin. I have worked hard on Misplaced Pages and made a lot of changes, using my extensive knowledge of certain fields as well as commitment to WP:NPOV. Almost all of my changes have been well-received; and I'm desperate to become an admin. Walton monarchist8919:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I do not think I'm going to change to support. I notice that you have made very few edits overall and in the project space (see Misplaced Pages: contributions) and despite your interest in vandal-fighting, I don't see any evidence in your contributions that you participate in vandal-fighting. Additionally, you can be a good editor without being ready for adminship. That is the category I believe you would fit in to. Thus, I suggest that if this RfA fails you continue to be a good editor and dedicate a bit of time to working in areas that administrators will need experience in (WP:AfD is a good place to look). Sometime before you seek adminship again, it may be a good idea to open an editor review to get some feedback on your progress. Some admin coaching may be beneficial as well. However, please don't see adminship as a validation of your hard work toward improving Misplaced Pages. You don't need adminship to show you are an asset to the project, and thus there is really no need to be desperate to become an admin. Just take your time and return when you have a great amount of experience and Wiki-knowledge under your belt; adminship is first and foremost about serving Misplaced Pages. -- tariqabjotu19:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, i know. Have you ever compared my version with the others? It's obvious that the users edit warring with me are trying to delete the sourced information which is a direct compilation from britannica. You can check this easily cause i already had given the link. The reverters are deleting every entry related with turkic people and replacing them with persian (not even iranian) and accusing the all the others as nationalist or pan-turkist vandals. What they are writing is story not history. I shall greatly appreciate if you would be kind enough to make a comparison and check the sources, then we can discuss the issue better. Regards. E10442122:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Britannica sources are okay, but sources with authors attached normally are better. I don't see the accusation of vandalism you are referring to, but you shouldn't fight fire with fire; that will only make the fire bigger. -- tariqabjotu00:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
As an academic, i know how to write an article better, but i gave the britannica and columbia just as an example. These are easily reachable and reliable sources. I recommend you to check the edit summaries/histories of these articles and compare them. You'll see a how the words changes to reflect pov. Just make a comparison. Connect to Britannica (which is very simple) and compare it what's written in the article or you can compare with my version where i cited britannica. They changed the content but kept the references. Whenever i correct them, they revert. Should we let them mislead people? They are using wikipedia to make their pov propaganda. This is a kind of vandalism or whatever you call it. Regards E10442110:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I have a (translated) copy of the Baburnuma, but could not find the image in there. I see several other pieces of artwork, but this one does not appear to be one of them. -- tariqabjotu13:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
RE: My talk page
You definitely make a good point, but the six articles you linked to had more than just E104421 and Tajik edit warring on them. Can you link me to one where it was just those two edit warring? -- Steel19:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I would argue that Babur was really just an edit war between those two. Regardless, perhaps a request for mediation is in order to try to organize all the parties involved in this together. Since the Mediation Committee is really tied up at the moment, maybe a couple neutral parties could try to resolve the dispute. -- tariqabjotu20:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Probably because it looked like an edit war in the making. I actually think this one can stand unprotection. -- Steel23:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
congratulations!
At last, Misplaced Pages has your services as an administrator. I wish you all the very best. If I can ever be of help, lemme know w/o hesitation. Don't worry, this is not a premature congrats! Rama's arrow03:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think any messages between us are impersonal. That your arduous journey culminated alongside mine evokes a sense of brotherhood. Congratulations for your devotion to Misplaced Pages despite the controversial previous RfAs you had to bear. Rama's arrow03:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
All flights are booked. So I shall rather participate in the party on-line. :) And, all the best for for all the time: . --Bhadani04:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Vote count, end time, support, opposition, technicalities, campaigning, notification, responding, religion, editcountitis, length of tenure, time since last nomination, neutrality, bias, civility, incivility, eagerness, humility, trust, distrust, and WP:100. Pretty good! One more support apparently got the job done. - crzcrztalk04:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't change my username, only my sig. I can't change username back to what it was (see WP:BN for reason), and I wouldn't mind if people wrote Kimchi.sg instead. The user and user talk pages for Kimchi.sg redirect to mine, anyway. ;-) Kimchi.sg06:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. I missed it. Otherwise I should have given you a big support. I feel kind of guilty because I was kind of responsible (to some extent) for the previous failure of your previous RfA. But I am happy to see that you are now an Admin. CONGRAAATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTSSSSSSSSS!!!!!--Aminz06:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Joturner, though we sometimes disagree (historically I mean :) ) but may I stop by your talk page when I needed help? --Aminz06:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations on becoming an admin. Seeing your thank-you message, I am sorry that I didn't "vote" in your RfA (since the consensus seemed clear and correct). It really is ingenious and I wish I had a copy on my Talk page. Eluchil40412:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations. You seem to be interested in civility on Misplaced Pages--on the other hand I think anyone who would be a Misplaced Pages administrator is basically a fool, as it will earn you nothing but the right to always be at least half wrong in everything you do at Wikikpedia for no pay. Please continue politely inserting yourself into discussions run amok and asking participants to be civil to each other. KP Botany21:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations, Tariqabjotu! Have fun with your new tools, and if you ever have any admin-related questions, feel free to contact me. Nishkid6421:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Tariq,
I read your note on the Requests for page protecting page. I'm not so savvy when it comes to WP's technical issues, so maybe you can help me there: if you want to talk to someone who has a different IP every time s/he logs on, do I have to write on *each* of his various talk pages? Also, I think the anon has taken up a user name, User:Knbh. I have talked to him/her there, but there was no response. Also, s/he doesn't seem to use the account anymore.
And, IMO, it's not a question of content. Normally, when someone adds an actor/actress to an up-coming movie, I check the change via IMBd, ComingSoon, or, in case of Bollywood movies, RadioSargam, IndiaFM and Rediff. There are no references for all the actors acting in the movies the anon has edited. I asked several times for references to be added, but to no avail.
Best regards, --Plumcouch21:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
If you want to talk to someone who has a different IP every time s/he logs in, it would be very difficult to make contact on his/her user talk pages. Perhaps you could encourage the user to create an account (given it's so quick and easy) to make things a bit easier. Alternatively, you could facilitate discussion on the talk page(s) of the relevant article(s). -- tariqabjotu04:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
although you claim to be accepting of all religions on you page, you contradict yourself by blocking User_talk:Sataniscool. i'll have you know that satanism is a recognized and protected religion just like judaism or christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.3.106 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I have nothing against Satanism and I have long been aware of its existence (and legitimacy). But that's not the question here. Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Username#Inappropriate usernames, which mentions under Inflammatory usernames:Names of religious figures such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs. If the username is not a blatant violation of that rule (one could possibly make that case for User:Sataniscool), one can look at the user's contributions to see whether they are in good faith. Judging by Sataniscool's only edit, it is highly unlikely this user was going to be editing in good faith. That is why I blocked him/her. -- tariqabjotu04:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Re
I respectfully disagree with that assessment. Vandalism-only accounts are blocked indefinitely because they present a security hazard (they can edit semi-protected pages if they are older than 4 days), and because such accounts serve no legitimate purpose. Furthermore, the last time a new administrator removed my report about a vandalism-only account, the account was subsequently blocked by Samuel Blanning after I relisted it, although no edits were made from the account in the interim. I'm certainly not requesting that you perform any block that you find to be unjustified; however, as vandalism-only accounts are commonly blocked, I would request that you leave the reports on Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism so that another administrator has the opportunity to block the accounts. Thank you. John25405:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
And so you have exposed the flaw (or is it strength?) of administrators – they don't all think alike. I stand firm with my opinion (as I'm sure you stand firm with yours) since I don't believe users should be blocked liberally. I suggest you try WP:AN or WP:RFI to get a broader spectrum of opinions, if you feel it's necessary. -- tariqabjotu05:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
re:
That's quite amusing. When I first saw it I was thinking it was very impersonal then I read the explaination underneath. Gave me a chuckle, thanks. James08606:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You raise a good point, and I believe that's a good idea. Perhaps I'd wait for a bit more input on the talk page before unprotecting the article, though. -- tariqabjotu14:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support!
A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Misplaced Pages as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thanks again! ReyBrujo20:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This edit is another revert. You can see he reverted back to the version of User:Zero0000 even if he added some (which is why he said +). He removed the same blocks of material. Amoruso21:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
"When Jewish independence came to an end in the year 70, the population numbered, at a conservative estimate, some 5 million people. (By Josephus' figures, there were nearer 7 million.) Even sixty years after the destruction of the Temple, at the outbreak of the revolt led by Bar Kochba in 132, when large numbers had fled or been deported, the Jewish population of the country must have numbered at least 3 million, according to Dio Cassius’ figures. Sixteen centuries later, when the practical possibility of the return to Zion appeared on the horizon, Palestine was a denuded, derelict, and depopulated country. The writings of travellers who visited Palestine in the late eighteenth and throughout the nineteenth century are filled with descriptions of its emptiness, its desolation. In 1738, Thomas Shaw wrote of the absence of people to fill - Palestine's fertile soil. In 1785, Constantine Francois Volney described the "rained" and "desolate" country. He had not seen the worst. Pilgrims and travellers continued to report in heartrending terms on its condition. Almost sixty years later, Alexander Keith, recalling Volney's description, wrote: "In his day the land had not fully reached its last degree of desolation and depopulation."
"Outside the gates of Jerusalem we saw indeed no living object, heard no living sound, we found the same void, the same silence ... as we should have expected before the entombed gates of Pompeii or Herculaneam a complete eternal silence reigns in the town, on the highways, in the country ... the tomb of a whole people."
I disagree. Partial reverts are counted too per WP:3RR and this isn't a partial revert - it's a full revert where he removed MORE material. How is it not a revert. Cheers. Amoruso21:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This might be construed as a revert to Zero's version, but this should not. The purpose of a block is to prevent people from disrupting Misplaced Pages. The cautionary note should be sufficient; no need to block the user based on questionable grounds. -- tariqabjotu21:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
While I have to agree that Ian Pitchford did violate WP:3RR, I'm fine with your decision to unblock and give him a strong warning. Such matters are best if resolved without blocking, so its all fine. Cheers, Rama's arrow22:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Alright; I'm glad you're okay with it. I was originally going to contact you first, before unblocking, but it appeared from your contributions that you were not available. -- tariqabjotu22:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
For future reference, your interpretation of the 3RR is incorrect. Quoth the policy page:
"Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark). Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. 'Complex partial reverts' refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention."
Enjoy your new-found powers, and remember to use them only for good, and not for evil. If you would like to try out your new mop, here are some spots that always need loving care:
You recently added an until parameter, and I was trying to figure out how to use it but my efforts turned up fruitless. I think you might have posted an incorrect example of its usage above the template, which was: {{subst:GBlock|not having enough cowbell|8 April 2000}}. How does one use the until parameter? Thanks. Cowman10923:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Since you were the admin who has placed it under protection and wisely requested discussions take place on the talk page I feel it appropriate to share my perception of the current situation:
User:ShortBus, who ironically was the one who requested the page be frozen, has largely ignored my postings on the talk page as to why his edits violate policy. Rather than respond to me, he has instead posted some kind of "challenge" to protest warriors to write how the organization has influenced debates on the Iraq War or the neoconservative movement. To me he doesn't seem to be interested in discussing wikipedia policy let alone following it in his edits. Coincidentally, it is his edits (which I believe violate policy) which have been "frozen" in the article. Lawyer2b13:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry - on top of a false alarm, I made a mistake in blocking this editor. The threat was a quote from a website being discussed. Rama's arrow17:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
And why should I sign up for an account?
Isn't wikipedia all about the freedom of editing... The freedom of NOT having an account? I mean, you really are taking the role of the hypocrite here... allowing the conveyance of the wikipedian motto "Inaccuracies over quality and let everyone contribute"? Yeah, thought so.
Of course, I could allways switch over to dialup and annoy you on that regard... hmm... he he he.
As far as I see it, the only point of having an account is for access to protected articles, and making crappy new ones. :p
Warning: Following is a series of rhetorical questions. And even if you claim to disagree with the answer implied, don't respond
And actually, what is vandalism? Is it the removal of text that I don't agree with? Or how about the addition of uncited information? Inaccurate information? Reversion of bad articles to their previously bad state? The merging of articles without general consensus? The deletion of articles because they don't suit your taste? (Excluding clear violations of WP:Policy). If I were to remove the innumerable amount of inaccuracies within wikipedia, the unreferenced information, the POV, the horrible mergers, would I not STILL be tagged as a vandal? The information that breaks WP: Policy also creates wikipedia, to remove it would drastically reduce article size, and although this would be done in all earnest, its appearances would be interpreted as hostility and vulgar.
And thus, even if one were to attempt to truely help wikipedia, it would be impossible, for you are but 1 person, and there are masses of ignorant beings reverting your efforts in an attempt to preserve their ideals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.241.54 (talk • contribs)
Hi Tariq. Seeing as you are the man for these current events, could you please check my nom to see if Ian Thorpe deserves a run. He just retired today and won 11 World Championship titles - the most by an swimmer. Also won 5 Olympic gold and 13 individual world records. Of course, I maybe biased, as I wrote the article. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a link for the World Championships? Also, is there a way to clarify his eleven-time winnings? Is this multiple medals at just a few World Championships? -- tariqabjotu02:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I meant wiki-link. The best I could find was International Swimming Federation, but that seems to be more about the organization than the World Championship. Also, is this picture as bad as I think it is? It seems like it would be much more helpful if he were in a swimming environment, but ITN is in need of a change of scenery. -- tariqabjotu02:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I've posted a similar message on Zero's page. I'm not entirely sure what the protocol is for the request for sysop moderation here, but, hopefully, this might be it. There are irreconcilable viewpoints in Talk:Palestine, subsection Cleanup needed for the section "Demographics in the late Ottoman and British Mandate periods". This article needs moderation, and, hopefully, this is the right place to ask. Thank you Wood34513:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I know I'm the late one, but congrats on your adminship! Every admin helps, especially in relatively less watched areas (such as WP:RM, where I've encountered you many times, but it's great because now you can actually move pages over existing ones!). Keep on partying with your new powers! —Mets501 (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It is again me, this time with a simple question, but I really need your feedback. I am involved in a dispute in which some editors consider Paul Johnson (journalist), a conservative journalist who has a lower-second class degree in Jesuit method at Stonyhurst College at Oxford, to be more reliable than Bernard Lewis & Encyclopedia of Islam for the following reasons:
Johnson's publications are have likely outsold those of Lewis by a wide margin
In fact, the quotes from Encyclopedia of Islam are removed and quotes from Johnson is replaced. I would be thankful if you could comment about it. Maybe here on your talk page is good! Thanks very very much. --Aminz01:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
J. K. Rowling's books have outsold those of Bernard Lewis, but I wouldn't say she's a better source on Islamic topics. Given Bernard Lewis's credentials, I'd say he is more reliable than Paul Johnson. They do have a point about the Encyclopedia of Islam; it's not terrible, but I'm sure you could find better if you're trying to resolve a dispute. I would prefer to see the context of the debate, however. -- tariqabjotu02:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
And this is one of the edits in dispute where Encyclopedia of Islam was deleted in favor of Johnson because Encyclopedia of Islam is a POV teritary source. --Aminz02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Would you please let me know why Johnson is a reliable source. He is a conservative journalist who has a lower-second class degree in a college. Should I put it side by side with Lewis and Claude Cahen??? Just because he is a popular writer? --Aminz02:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Joturner, as Admin User:Gren pointed out here , Dhimmi regulations have nothing to do with antisemtism. I have lots of sources which confirm this. But they are reverted by User:Beit Or; Slimvirgin; Humus spies and Jayjg. --Aminz02:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
In fact, I have studied this issue for awhile. I've seen only one notable writer who thinks Dhimmi regulation is related to antisemitism and that is Bat Ye'or. But this is rejected as a myth by Lewis and as a distortive picture by Mark Cohen. --Aminz02:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the be-all, end-all source on reliability and suitability of sources. Regardless, I don't appreciate what appears to be you badgering me until I wholeheartedly agree with you. Like I said and implied earlier, I don't think being a popular writer is grounds to be sourced in an article if the subject is not his or her expertise. It is reasonable, though, to present different viewpoints. Some of those viewpoints may be more critical of Islam than others – that's just a fact of life. Lastly, why do you say Admin User:Gren? Being an admin is not supposed to give one's opinion more weight in these circumstances. -- tariqabjotu02:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for overseeing the Ryūkyū Islands move poll. As you noted, it ended without consensus. Nevertheless, the page was just moved as if ignoring the poll. That does not seem right. If you could, would you please comment on the appropriateness of that move. I started a new topic on the talk page there. Thank you. Bendono02:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The article name was Ryukyu Islands WITHOUT macrons until people started moving it without consensus on October 13 and beyond. The article name ought to be Ryukyu Islands, the name it was originally before all the "moves without consensus" began back in October.--Endroit02:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tariqabjotu. I was just requesting move protection for this article, it's good that you acted ahead. Could you also protect its talk page? I would but admins are not allowed to protect pages that they were editing. Regards.--Húsönd04:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean move protect it? I sure hope we don't need to do that, so I'll hold off unless someone – sigh – ends up moving that repeatedly. -- tariqabjotu04:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, on second thought, it is unlikely that someone will try to move the talk page without the article. Meh. Regards.--Húsönd04:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Please note that the PLANS page is one of several that is currently in arbitration. That's why there has been little talk on the talk page there. If you're going to unprotect it, you may want to also keep an eye on it... just sayin'... Pete K01:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Recently User:MikeJason has removed the {sprotected} banner and the {cleanup} tag on this article. (See for instance ). It remains semi-protected so far as I know, he just took off the banner, with no comment on the Talk page. Isn't at least one of these against policy? The same user is starting to re-apply some of the same POV edits that occasioned 's original request for semi-protection. EdJohnston01:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I re-added the {{sprotected}} template because it is indeed still semi-protected. He may have thought removing the template would have actually unprotected the article, so I won't hold him for that. However, his insertion of the terrorist sentence is enough to constitute vandalism, especially since it appears likely that he is one or more of the IPs that was taking part in the vandalism prior to semi-protection. -- tariqabjotu01:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Tomas Shaw, Travels and Observations Relating to Several Parts of Barbary and the Levant (London, 1767), p. 331ff.; Constantine Francois Volney, Travels Through Syria and Egypt in the Years 1783, 1784 and 1785 (London, 1787); Alexander Keith, The Land of Israel (Edinburgh, 1944), P. 465.
Katz, 114
Alphonse de Lamartine, Recollections of the East, Vol. I (London, 1845), pp. 268, 308.
