Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stevertigo (talk | contribs) at 01:21, 26 February 2007 (Mediation at Talk:Reforms under Islam (610-661)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Muhammad

When there is an active discussion over a section occuring within an article's talk page (in this case, the opening paragraph), it is advised that no edits which fall into the remit of this discussion be made. Please see the talk page before editing this section in the future. LinaMishima 00:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, when you cite copyright violations for removals, it is helpful for future editors to indicate the source being violated. LinaMishima 01:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, you seem to be entirely correct, and the source books in question sound to still be in copyright :) Just remember to include details of the source in future edit summaries, as it makes it easier to remove said section if it reappears. LinaMishima 01:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:MuhammadSeal.jpg

thank you. i have responded. ITAQALLAH 09:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

per , do you still have any objection as to the nature of this image? if not, please proceed to remove it from IfD. ITAQALLAH 02:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

dear Opiner, although i understand that you may be frustrated by other peoples' opinion you believe to be false, please do not leave incivil remarks on my talk page about any editor in the future. this is a friendly notice, and i hope we can work collegially in the future. ITAQALLAH 11:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Dont know what incivil thing you're talking about, but I hold no grudge against you. Only asking that you should look at history before reverting because what you call incoherent might not be from the version you think it is. How would you feel if you wrote something perfectly coherent, then I, maybe not really knowing English, changed it to be relatively incoherent, then some third party reverted saying, Itaqallah wrote something incoherent? Thanks for friendly noticing.Opiner 11:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Why take our Moses?

Why you are taking out Moses from Muhammad article? Is that your prophet and we should not mention him? --- ابراهيم 08:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah you caught me Moses is my prophet, I am a Jew. I added Moses back. Now please read WP:NPOV and stop making the article say that Muhammad really had revelations.Opiner 08:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Term for evil CORRUPTION

Dear Irishpunktom, maybe you know, whats the Islamic term for the corruption of scriptures/monotheism in Judaism and Christianity?Opiner 07:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are talking about Tahrif, but, it's not evil. --Irishpunktom\ 20:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad as a diplomat

Opiner, you may find something of interest in this article.Proabivouac 09:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry, Ive been very busy and not really around much, but will examine this when i can. Thank you for the information.Opiner 07:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

World War Two

I deleted your nuetrality warning; I think you would need to explain a little more on the talk page why you consider such a warning is needed for the main facts section. It has been gone over literally hundreds of times and not many people would think the main facts are in dispute. Please say what it is you disagree with. Thanks. MarkThomas 21:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Quran and science

Thanks for expressing yourself and reverting itaqallah's edit. I could really use help on this article if you have the time. Don't let itaqallah bully you. He attempts to use wikipedia rules to silence people who aren't brainwashed as he is, but it doesn't work. Arrow740 21:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

don't throw stones from a glass house, Opiner. before you go on another incivility rampage, take a look at your own edit summaries and note how glaringly inaccurate they are. "Reverting of the censoring" for instance is a classic example. if simply removing material equates to "censorship", you have been consistently guilty of committing it. ITAQALLAH 13:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Maome Picture Mediation

I notice that you have been adding the Maome image to Muhammad. An application for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Cabal. Would you be willing to be a party to that mediation? Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA 00:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your note. Please read Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Policy to get an idea of the purpose of mediation, and the preferred ways of resolving disputes on Misplaced Pages. Thanks. --BostonMA 11:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

you're welcome. regards, --Aminz 05:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello, just letting you know that mediation has begun at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation for a case filed here. You were mentioned as someone whose input would be valued. If you would like to participate, please visit the mediation page and sign up. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture captions

Dear Opiner,

I have seen yours and other editors disputes about the caption of certain pictures. I am of the opinion that caption should be concise but not onesided. Details should be covered in articles about the depicted sites.

Hence

• the caption of "Dome of the Rock" picture should have a caption saying something along the lines of "The Dome of the Rock, built ontop the Temple Mount, marks the spot from which Muslims believe Muhammad ascended to Paradise."
• the Hagia Sophia picture caption doesn't need to go into all these details, as these are not relevant here. However, I see that the onesided picture title is indeed a problem and hence I have uploaded that picture again, under a more suitable title. See . The caption should say something like "Muhammad's name, engraved in gold, adorning the walls of the Hagia Sophia".

I won't do any edits myself, as I have already reverted three times today. Cheers, Str1977 18:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have already replied on the talk page, talk to me there --Irishpunktom\ 20:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay but please dont blank my message about reverting. Its not very polite.Opiner 20:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Its my talk page, and I added it to the archive, don't revert on my talk page, its not very nice at all! --Irishpunktom\ 20:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Looked through your archive it looks like you have a parole for reverting on Muhammad. Is that why you blanked my messages? Or maybe some other reason?Opiner 20:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a parole in general, and congrats on using the archive, wasn't that hard was it? - So now you know what to do, please do not revert my talk page again. --Irishpunktom\ 21:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Relation between islam and science

Your comments are good. Why don't you work on the article? Aside from the "specific issues" stuff it does need a lot of work. Arrow740 02:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be a better title for the article, maybe. Pretty funny. Arrow740 02:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

I don't see anything wrong in forgiving someone's aggressiveness or in telling them about it. However, that was not what I have done here, as that would be no big deal. I have made a statement that I feel just as annoyed by his behaviour but will not seek revenge for this "in high places" but the contrary. Hope you can live with that. Cheers, Str1977 10:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well you know what I meant! Anyway I was just chattering. Silly for wikipedia editors to talk about the judgement day in relation to the edits!Opiner 10:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and I wouldn't have started it myself. However I meant what I said, even though the wording maybe was a bit theatrical. But after all, he called me a "liar" (for an honest mistake of no great importance) and you a "false accuser". Cheers, Str1977 11:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

When I did the 'false accuse'?? Oh well. Im thinking theres some WP:OWN going on here. Broad own of the believers but most specific own of Aminz. Hes filling article with massive block quoting ALL going in one direction. Then and hiding from the problems people point out by pretend HEY I'm ONLY quoting what these distinguish scholars say! As if he picking the scholar and quote at random! so having no EDITOR responsibility. Soon title should change to List of positive quotes people make about Muhammad by Aminz.Opiner 23:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Islam

The reason I'm pushing for Islam to become FA is because it will be forced to become neutral and well-written. Look back through the history of the article and you can see the week long revert war I fought over my attempts to include a section on Islamic terrorism. The people who guard Islam do not want it to say anything negative - they seem to be devout Muslims who won't hear of it. We all have to work within that framework. Stick to WP Guidelines and you can't go wrong. But calling the Qu'ran a "collection of verses"? That's not helpful in an article. Dev920 (Please vote here) 10:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Any help working on Islam would be appreciated. Dev920 (Please vote here) 23:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You can't remove a word without boss's permission.

You can't remove a word without boss's permission from Hinduism. You put it for discussion on talk page and then tens of Wikipedians not having knowledge will be invited to discuss. Wikipedians regd. just the same day or two days back or max. a week back, would come and admire the article so much, would feel the thing you remove to be excellent and would like the same, best placed; If you strongly argue the idiotic part, there will be a voting. Barnstars will be awarded to Wikipedias who support against you. swadhyayee 02:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No can't think so for Baka, he is too seasoned.swadhyayee 03:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hope you saw the latest comment of Baka, agreeing with you on talk page. swadhyayee 03:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I also think the philosophy thing is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. There's too much bad english and nonsense in the article and I personally think its long and unwieldy.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

On the second issue there's a reason why the most active Hindu users (myself, D-boy, Nobleeagle, DaGizza, Rama's Arrow) rarely edit the article (I've edited it less than you). Its because none of us want to get caught in the dirty work of actually performing a complete makeover of the article. About HeBhagwan, I respect him (especially because I ditched trying to make sense of the article a long time ago). Your edit summaries lately seem a bit agitated and you seem also to have little legitimacy among Hindu users. Go to WP:HINDU and perhaps create a few articles that you feel wiki is missing on Hinduism. Your reputation will rise, and people will consider/accept your views more quickly.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work promoting NPOV; 1 suggestion

Opiner, Good work promoting NPOV in articles. I try to do the same thing myself, and although I have been especially working on Hinduism-related articles, I have noticed your good work on articles like Islam. Much of what I do on wikipedia is trying to promote NPOV in all articles. So I'm quite open to criticism. I trust that you too, since you seem reasonable and committed to quality, are open to suggestions. Here are two I would make, and I hope you take them in the spirit of helpfulness I mean them to have.

1. Try to keep a friendly tone. People will typically have a better reaction to your edits if you say "Perhaps we should change x to y in order to make it clearer and NPOV," rather than "Whoever made this edit ought to be dragged out into the street and shot without a chance to say their prayers!" (Of course I'm exaggerating, and you didn't say anything quite so extreme).
2. Be careful not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater." Remember that it is always easier to delete than to draft new material. In general, I think it is better not to delete material unless I have something better to replace it with. In some cases, it may be better to replace it with nothing. But in many cases if you just delete a lot of material, the section of the article will cease to be coherent. So consider not only the sentences themselves, but also how they interact with the rest of the article. Ask yourself, "if I delete this section, will it leave important questions unanswered in the mind of the reader?"

Well, these are just my thoughts. Thanks for all your hard work on all the articles you've improved! Happy editing ! By the way, although I am a Hindu, I will defend you if anybody challenges your right to contribute simply becasue you are not Hindu. Some have suggested that non-Hindu editors be screened out. Such a view is wrong. There is no requirement that you belong to a certain religion in order to edit any article. Edits and commonts are to be judged on their own merits, not based on the identity of the user. HeBhagawan 04:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You can not use primary sources in wikipedia. --Aminz 09:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The Battle of Khaybar article is not reliable. The sources are misrepresented --Aminz 10:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert?

I am not aware that I reverted, please be specific. --Irishpunktom\ 11:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Typing in caps is considered shouting, please refrain from doing so. Further the entire text reads "'A'isha reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said about the gecko as a noxious creature". Harmala made this addition that she said: I did not hear that he had commanded to kill them." - exactly where does it mention "salamander NOT GECKO!"--Irishpunktom\ 11:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The edit supplied on my talk page does not show a revert. What are you suggesting I am reverting to? - The information on the page that I removed suggested that trees were destroyed, and thus contradiction of the source provided, as well as others (including Conrad) which says that they were "captured". --Irishpunktom\ 12:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE! the removing of the other editors addition is revert!Opiner 12:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the partial removal of anothers edits due to innaccuarcy is a revert? Also, please stop talking in Caps, it's rude. --Irishpunktom\ 12:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning all parties to stop the edit warring on Muhammad

Reach a consensus on the talk page or I will have no choice but to fully protect until you do - and this always happens to the wrong version. Consider this effective immediately.  Glen  08:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely you understand your argument is the fundamental problem with edit warring... everyone thinks that they are right. I could ask him right now and he'd say exactly the same thing about you! None of you are vandals (even though I see that terms being thrown around) and it seems you all (in your minds) have the best interests of the article at heart.

Its a emotional subject that obviously means a lot to you all which is why this just will go on and on and on. I honestly hope you can sort it out yourselves but failing that a third party will do it. But literally dozens of reversions each day by each other is absolutely crazy. I don't know what else I could/can do I'm afraid. Its up to you guys  Glen  04:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What is up?

Hello Opiner?

What is wrong? I have used these hadiths and gave them to Truthspreader on his email because they were not there. I do not know about TruthSpreader and other articles. I am working on this article and collecting more info regarding this story since I find this article lacking a lot. I am not sure what is going on between you and TruthSpreader, but I suggest you to not remove Hadith material. It is an important resource in Islam. I am not sure what is your background? Many things are not reported in the Quran and only detailed in the Hadith. I hope you are okay with this. Regarding the 'Prophet' word, you may take this out of course, but I would think removing Hadith material does not make alot of sense. Almaqdisi 06:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, I got you exactly and I agree with what you are saying. What I will try to do is collect some stories as recorded from historical books. I understand that WikiPedia is to document and collect what is written by others. This Hadith mentioned here is really used and argued not by TruthSpreader, but is used by many authors to explain the story. I think this should be made more accurate as you suggested. It should not be implied that any of us is concluding this, but it is what the Scholars generally concluded. This article is quite poor when compared to a good documentation of the story that usually requires several book pages. Anyway, I understand tottaly what you say here. I will work on this story as it need more attention. Finally, I am not sure about that Hadith you sent me, I do not see why it should or should not be included. If it is a true Hadith, I mean its degree is strong and authentic, then it should be discussed in whatever article. I do not see why not. Almaqdisi 07:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the issue maybe here that you will end up with a lot of contradictions. There are various aspects of this. All Hadiths have been assigned a degree of truth based on their narrator sequence and other issues. Unless the Hadith is weak or rejected, because some are, it should be used. It is well known that there are many occasions when a Hadith has been falsely connected to Muhammad. Anyway, I think that is an issue you can resolve at other article. If you need my help, please let me know if I can offer anything. I do have a quite good database to verify any Hadith mostly. There are also a bunch of them on the Web. In any case, please let me know. But again, I basicly do not see any reason to exclude a Hadith particularly if it is ranked Sahih by experts. If you want, I may look up the Gekos one for you. If it is ranked high, then it should be there in the article. Almaqdisi 07:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You should not go over different talk pages and write against Truthspreader. This is considered spaming. --Aminz 07:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I only said that on two pages where he made the insincere attorney arguments. If he say on two pages cant use hadith then Im gonna point it out on those same two pages. If he do it on three Im gonna point it out on three. That making sense? Otherwise his make the same argument on multiple pages is spam right?Opiner 07:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask an admin to join in. I also drop the suggested compromise and wait for admin comment.--Aminz 09:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Duravo wasn't Muslim. Is Gren Muslim?? --Aminz 09:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Duh yeah. Like Tariqabjotu who you also ask although I think his answering make some sense he say dont use the engineer. Try neutral = NOT for Islam NOT against Islam.Opiner 09:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, how do you know???? You can also ask always another admin to join. --Aminz 09:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Im knowing many things you dont know I know.Opiner 09:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Reforms under Islam

I would work on it but I need to spend my wikipedia time on the Criticism of the Quran article. I also have some editing to do on the Quran and Science one. It looks like Str1977 is getting involved in the Reforms one. If it gets really bad in that article let me know again and I'll help you out. You should try to get books which discuss the negative aspects of Islam, then they can't complain or waste time with their doublethink. Try getting books by Ignaz Goldhizer, a western scholar who has looked a lot at the hadith. Try Muslim Studies vol. 2. If it's clear that you're not putting any of your own interpretation in keep using the quotes from the hadith though. Arrow740 11:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes inclusion itself implies an implicit interpretation, but the ones you've included have meanings that are blatantly obvious, so it's fine. Arrow740 11:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try. I don't have the unlimited time to keep bullshit out that they seem to have to put it in, unfortunately. Arrow740 11:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes that can happen. A pattern that I've noticed (and other people have too) is that once they get the picture that someone is going to take a stand against them and force them to play by the rules they go find something else to do. If you have another run-in with itaqallah let me know; he's the bully of the group. We need to form some kind of guild like they have in their Muslim guild, because there are a bunch of us who do a lot of work on Islam-related article, and if we had more of a support group like they do we'd be better off. Arrow740 11:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Also it's really important to go get some books from the library. Arrow740 11:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Original research

Stop accusing me of Original research. The article is already well sourced and thank you for finding statements that would require precise citations. TruthSpreader 02:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Heres more of your original research Truthspreader. Looks like thats mostly what you're doing here.Opiner 02:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

According to which standard, it is Original research. The author which I quoted is a well-reputed scholar and the facts which I put there are accepted by all Muslims as part of the Sharia. TruthSpreader 02:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Accepted by all Muslim according to WHO? According to YOU! Thats why its called the original research! You tell people, don't use Hadith or Qu'ran without the secondary source but thats exactly what youre always doing! Always the original research!Opiner 02:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't even read properly. Before the enumeration and after the colon, I have already given the citation, from which I took these customs. TruthSpreader 02:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I brought back the only part having the source.Opiner 02:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

All the points are sourced, and by putting the reference after colon means that following points are coming from this source. TruthSpreader 02:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Even the html links?Opiner 02:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Which html link, there is only one html link, that goes to the original source. TruthSpreader 02:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay those are just Wikilinks Im sorry. BUT there is a whole lot of original research in that article and the Women in Islam. Can I take it out?Opiner 02:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Most welcome! TruthSpreader 02:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay I will. Sorry about the confusion this time.Opiner 02:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I don't want to get into the wider dispute, nor endorse any paticular view, but rejecting sources on the simple grounds that a professor may be an expert in a different area isn't that good an argument. I'm a geography undergraduate but for my work I have read books by historians, sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers, art historians, literary critics, geologists, physicists, chemists and probably a few others. I'm not saying that paticular source is right/wrong (I know nowhere near enough about Islam to comment) but that argument is fairly spurious. --Robdurbar 22:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... so anyone with a PhD is an expert on anything. Alright! Arrow740 05:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, if you have any of Ibn Warraq's books on hand (and I'm don't know if you do) could you add some of his stuff into the Criticism of the Quran article? And any other Opining that's needed would also be good. Arrow740 05:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I don't know how to do it though. Arrow740 06:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought my latest quote here was pretty funny. Arrow740 07:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I have some sympathy with what Rob Durbar argues above. Of course it is not the case that anyone with a PhD is an expert on anything, but people who are employed as professional academics and publishing with a reputable (in this case extremely reputable) publishing house can in general be trusted not to get facts wrong. In the case of this particular point, and without having looked at that source, I guess that the authors do not make that statement as part of findings from their original research but as part of general context or background. All academics do this. If you are an expert on art history then you have to know enough about general history to be able to situate and explain your research into art history. The statement quoted by Aminz is either sourced to different authors, in which case we can follow the trail back, or made on the basis that it is generally accepted fact (which actually, it is). You can argue that the statement should be omitted entirely from the article, but what you can't do is to alter the statement and still source it to the authors cited by Aminz, which I believe is what you did. Itsmejudith 08:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

'All academics do this.' Its called the heresay. If Aminz wants to follow the trail do that NOT source a sweeping statement about the sociology history to Professor of art.Opiner 09:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that such arguments cannot be a free for all - "its been published in a journal so it must be true"" - type thing. However, art and sociology are very closely related fields; this is not a biologist discussing Chopin. As long as there is no significant contradiction to this book from within sociology (or history or whatever) then I don't see what's wrong with using it.

Of course, I'm not quite sure how this source is being used. An alternative way of doing things would be to make it clear that we're attributing whatever statement it is backing up to the authors of the book. Robdurbar 09:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not only that source which says that. http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0231126832&id=DzLZrLh07YwC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&vq=The+social+system&dq=Islam:+An+Introduction+to+Islam+gerhard&sig=S0yIM4nlFXSYzr4a6odwsyn0Ye8&hl=en is another example (The social system used ...). But that source was enough. It was not necessary for me to find this other source. The book was published in a famous press and the authors were professors of Islamic art at Harvard university. --Aminz 09:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Quran

There are two things going on there. One is Aminz's inappropriate use of quotes, and the other is Aminz and Itaqallah's reversions of my Spencer quotes and other things. Maybe you can help out . Arrow740 22:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

For obvious reasons, Aminz has insisted that this biased summary of academic views on the subject of war and violence in the Quran preceed the discussion of the criticism. Please see the discussion about this here, and weigh in if you can. Arrow740 23:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Note from Muhammad mediation

Hi there, I am just dropping you a note because you signed up to participate at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. We have not heard from you since we started discussing proposed criteria for including images, so I'm just asking whether you plan to participate further. If so, we need you to agree or disagree to the criteria we have developed. Important note: The criteria will be used only if the group decides to include images, which will be later in the mediation. Agreeing to the criteria does not mean that you agree to including any images. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello! I've requested for a mediation, here Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Reforms under Islam (610-661). Please join it and sign your name. Thanks --Aminz 08:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please sign up for Mediation . --Aminz 08:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, please join the mediation. Everybody except you has joined. Thanks --Aminz 00:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have temporary removed your name from the list since you seem not to get online. If you would like to join the mediation, feel free to add your name. --Aminz 06:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit war

Please stop being so aggressive. You will not only fail to get anywhere with your fellow editors, but it makes you look wild and irrational, and may result in a block if you go any further. I understand your frustration, but making your changes and then discussing it on the talk page is a better option than edit warring and then venting. Try to stay calm. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Witch Hunt beginning

Looks like a group of highly POV users are trying to start a witch hunt: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Beit_Hanoun_November_2006_incident http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChozo

Thought you might like to know in case they start attacking you too. This is typical POV pusher tactics in any case, when you can't win, try to destroy the other side. 70.114.236.109 13:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Rosetta Stone as this week's WP:AID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Rosetta Stone was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

AzaBot 16:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Quran again

If you can, please comment here. Arrow740 12:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Cactus as this week's WP:AID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Cactus was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

MER-C 03:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident

Sorry for having to revert your removal of the picture here. But if you have problems with the caption you shouldn't be removing the whole picture? The caption itself comes from here, so it looks pretty accurate to me? Do you have any particular reason to believe what's on the ground is not blood? And do you have any sources backing this claim up? (You can just reply here.) Thanks, --Taxico 07:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Look closely at the red water it is only red where the buildings are reflecting. Distributing of real flowing blood would be independent of the reflectiing. Either a natural illusion or a photoshop on magic wand selected area of building reflecting.
2. Why is there water? Does water normally flow down Gaza streets or maybe the IDF shells filled with water?
3. Is there any evidence of the shelling in the pic? Look at what the people are doing is it indicate anything about the story? or is there ANY reason for us believing it was taken at the scene?
4. Pic is not credited to a photographer and caption isnt credited. Even story isnt credited meaning BBC bought it. Unlike the respectable newspaper BBC doesnt credit its sources.Opiner 09:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

World War II

I have reverted some of your edits to World War II. User:R9tgokunks made some very controversal edits, and attempts to fix the article by others only made it worse. R9tgokunks's edits should have just been reverted. If you feel that something important was lost, feel free to add it. -- Petri Krohn 09:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Beit Hanoun

Regarding your edit summary there- I'm going to have to disagree with you. If all it took to override a reliable source were the opinions of the editors on the page editors would be free to ignore pretty close to anything by simply constructing a vaguely plausible reason why the source is inaccurate. JoshuaZ 07:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad as a diplomat

What is your reading of the sources itaqallah has provided on the talk page regarding the Jews of Medina and Muhammad's constitution? There's some disagreement on how to word the intro, and what to include. Arrow740 10:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your RFM

I have volunteered to mediate your case. I am not a member of the Mediation Committee, but have some experience conducting mediations. I'll only do so, of course, if all the parties consent. Please indicate on the mediation page whether you agree or not. Cheers, JCO312 00:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad RV

Hi Opiner, I'm Menkatopia. I am relatively new to this project, but I wanted to ask you for some feedback on your rv on the Muhammad page. You wrote, "Cant take away the criticism but keep the argument against it!" I was just wondering if you could explain what you meant because I try only to edit language, not content. It would help me if you could explain how I pov'd the argument. Menkatopia 07:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

'trolling' comment

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

• Remain polite per WP:Civility.
• Solicit feedback and ask questions.
• Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
• Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks!
this re comment. also i've fixed the edits so there are links to the pictures under discussion  ⇒ bsnowball  15:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikilogos

I thought you might be interested in my proposal for Misplaced Pages to use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Logo Variations and on my talk page. Thanks! FrummerThanThou 11:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Hi Opiner. The civility policy states that:

incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our rule of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.

Your comment on Irishpunktom's talk page seems like the sort of comment that would cause an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Please try to avoid such unnecessary comments. Thank-you. Sincerely, --BostonMA 13:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Civilization

Could you please have a look at Banu Qurayza. Cheers, Str1977 18:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I was on the discussion last week but I havent been around much. Its on my watchlist. looking a little better than last time I saw it.Opiner 02:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, since you've read the discussion in the persecution article on monotheism, please join the discussion there. --Aminz 07:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you please let me know the regulations Muhammad, or the early khalifas set regarding Dhimmi. The consensus of scholars is that Pact of Umar doesn't date back to Umar. --Aminz 08:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, please have a look at Lewis 1984 p.18. Taxation under early Islam was much less than that under Byzantium and Persian Empire. --Aminz 08:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, please note that Dhimmis were people of the Book + Sabians. The last one was an ambigious group. It was first taken as Zoroastrians and later it was extended to Hindus and others. --Aminz 08:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Banning polytheism is correct. But according to some Zoroastrians are polytheist but they were tolerated. I think the best way to put is 1. Banning polytheism 2. Giving a subject status to others. We can mention jizya but I am not sure if you would like to mention that since those people were paying taxes anyways. Under Islam it became less. --Aminz 08:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right that Muhammad banned polytheism. We can say that under Muslim polytheism was banned. That's fine. We can also say that others were given a subject status. I think we don't have any disagreement here. Cheers, --Aminz 09:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Kaaba

Please explain why you deleted the External Links for the Kaaba here. They are relevant External links for the Kaaba, correct? --Matt57 17:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation

Just to notify that mediation has renewed at the Muhammad article, after a delay due to Ars Scriptor's leaving, in case you still wanted to participate. I'll be the mediator, but I may call in help from someone more experienced later. | AndonicO 13:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I like your userpage. Lest we forget... | AndonicO 13:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation at Talk:Reforms under Islam (610-661)

Mediation was requested a while ago, and Ive responded. None involved in mediation has responded however. I am requesting your presence at the article to resolve any disputes. Thanks. -Ste|vertigo 01:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)