Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Striver (talk | contribs) at 17:18, 26 May 2006 (→Disruption/3RR warning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

comment

I appreciate your effort to add material such as Hind bint Awf, despite the AfD the article is fascinating looking back to expand the historical context in which Muhammed lived. Keep up the good work. I hope you add much more info to it over time, there are many questions about her and her life which the article raises right now and I can't wait to find out answers... Georgewilliamherbert 04:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Misplaced Pages:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BDAbramson T 04:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

I wanted to congratulate you for the administratorship above. Do you check your email? Salam PTW 03:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved from my main page

Dear Brother Striver: I can understand how you feel. Sometimes you need to take a break. I like your name Striver better than Hurted. I say to you wa la yu7zinuka el-lathina .... and do not be saddened by those people who... and also remember Imam Kathem (AS), Imam Ali bin al-Hussein (AS), Imam Hussein (AS) and Imam Hasan stories.

That is all coming from Qur'anic "wal-Kathimeen al-GhayDh."

I think the best way to ban bigotry is to be nicer to them as Imam Hasan(AS) did. Maybe you know the story but I will remind you of it. There was a shami guy who went to Medina after Hajj at the time of Mu'awiya rule and when he knew that Imam Hasan is who he is he started cussing on Imam Ali as Muawiyah taught those people. So Imam Hasan told him if we have hurt you, tell me how can I console you. And if not, then if you are hungry we can feed you and if you are sleepy we can offer you a bed. The man was astonished and eventually guided and his words became a proverb. After this treatment he used to say:"God knows best where he put his message." As followers of the gaurdians of the message, we should strive to present a good example even in the most hectic times as we were ordered by Imam Sadeq (AS). I know you are one of the great Ahl-ul-Bayt followers, may God help you present a good model of them too.

Do you have an email address? Wassalam Akhi 129. 00:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Links on Muslim

It is a bad precedent to begin (assuming it hasn't already begun, and if it has, its bad to continue). See the Jew article. There is a link to List of Jews that includes a link to all those respective articles you want to link. Perhaps consider creating one for Muslim professions and link that one article from the Muslim article. Like create List of Muslims or something, and insert those links there. Similarly, on the Islam page, we don't like, nor should we, to Islamic marriage, Islamic economics, Islamic science, Islamic banking, ad infinitium.

Personally, I really don't think lists really do much unless more information is provided. Categories do that same job, and are more efficient and effective. Something like, List of Presidents of the United States would be an effective list because it provides more information that just a basic list. Pepsidrinka 02:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Muslim politicians

Zoe has listed your page, Muslim politicians, for afd. Thought you might want to know. KI 04:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Muslim athletes

I know you are upset about the above-mentioned AfD, in the sense that it appears to wipe out the entire Muslim-related lists. However, nomination of other religion lists in response to this appears to be a disruption of Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point, which is strongly frowned upon by other editors. There may be a few editors, that may even be compelled to vote delete (selectively to only the original nominations) on such a basis.

Your reasoning by itself has been heard by other editors, and the discussion is heading towards a consensus to keep these articles. So may I kindly ask you to withdraw the additional nominations you have made, and allow the AfD to run its natural course. Thank you. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 13:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC) :)

AfD Comment

+Laugh and smile+! I wasnt planing on Islamic shopping, i dont see how that would whould have potential of becoming a long article. But it fits in Adab or maybe in Married life in the Qur'an and the Sunnah :)

I become anoyed since we already had Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Muslim athletes, and while we where talking about it in Talk:List of Muslims/Proposed Organization A, you just go and afd what we where talking about. This forces me to spend 1 or 2 houres to quikly make a article so it wont be deleted. Now its 3:15 AM, i have not sleept and i did not give a friend some information about 9/11, just because of this. And i dont appreciate it.

I know you mean well, just consider talking a bit more on talk pages. Also, i know that its not your fault, but i have a nasty allergic reactions to afd's, since User:Zora is stalking me and afd'ing everything here superinteligent intelect fails to grasb. Or she just delets my contributions since i have "Shi'a pov" and i "munge" articles with my "sub-standard prose" and that i generaly suck and should be "hospitalized". And if non of that works, she tries to orphan them by deleting all links to the article. argh.... She drives me nuts, and that is why im so easy to irritate....

Apologize accepted, i look forward to our continued talk on Talk:List of Muslims/Proposed Organization A :)

And i apologize for being dense and anoying :)

--Striver 02:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

First off, with your permission, I want to move this off the AfD. It is irrelevant to the discussion and just serves to extend the AfD longer than it needs to be. We weren't talking about this on Talk:List of Muslims/Proposed Organization A. joturner 02:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

OpenIslampedia

Salams/Greetings,

As a member of the Misplaced Pages community who has contributed to articles related to Islam, I thought you might be interested in a project I am trying to get going: OpenIslampedia. Please visit the site for more information.

While it is permissible to re-use content from Misplaced Pages (as long as it is cited appropriately and released under their GNU Free Documentation License), it is my hope that we will be able to develop new content for OpenIslampedia, more in accordance to the needs and desires of our community and audience.

Interested? Please consider joining us! As you probably know from working in Misplaced Pages, every contribution counts, no matter how small.

Ulises Ali Mejias

(UlisesAli 16:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC))

Muhammad Cartoons image

Hi Striver, you seem to have difficulty reading the talk page of Muhammad cartoons, so I'll just explain that everyone who responded to your question about why the image was removed said that the reason is that it is now included in the Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article, where all such opinions go. Niether this image] nor this one can go in the main article, because the main article no longer includes opinions. Cheers! Babajobu 17:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Appreciation interrupted

Hi Striver. I was going to thank you for your contributions, but then I just read in page that you hate me. Is there something in particular that I have done?DanielDemaret 18:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC) , or is "I hate you" directed to everyone that reads your page?

I just realized that perhaps it was someone else, and not you that wrote "I hate you" on your page. I am very sorry for the misunderstanding. So let me get back to saying that even if I mostly argue against your cases, what you write is intelligent and very interesting. DanielDemaret 19:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool

Så fint att vi bägge kan konversera på ett språk som bara någon procent här förstår :) Jag har frågor till dig, men det kan ta lång tid för mig att formulera, så bli inte förvånad ifall jag återkommer efter en tid till dig :) DanielDemaret 19:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Fråga om "Intent"

Jo, det var det där med "Further, what does the intention of the original user matter?" som jag tyckte lät intressant. Om jag ställer denna frågan: Anser du att det inte spelar någon roll ifall Fleming Rose hade för avsikt att förolämpa? Och om så är fallet: Vem menar du skall tolka ifall det var en förolämpning? DanielDemaret 19:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Bara så du vet. Jag har ställt frågan om "Intent" även till Chaos. Nämner det ifall ni två ville prata ihop er om ett bra svar. DanielDemaret 17:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Nishan-e-Hayder

Bro view the two links below

http://www.pafcombat.com/misc/gallantry-awards.htm

http://www.geocities.com/salman4paf/Operational_Awards.html

Zaidi 17:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Admin

Du frågad visst ifall jag var en "admin", och jag svarade aldrig för jag såg bara frågan nu. Svar, nej. Jag vill inte vara en "admin" just nu. Har annat att stå i. DanielDemaret 19:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

9/11

How do you propose the September 11 article be changed. I have read through most of the talk page, yet could you please provide me with exactly you want it to say. Put it on a sandbox or a subpage so that others may review your changes, rather than changing the main article. Pepsidrinka 02:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the second AfD. Improvement necessary but can come over time, deletion still a bad idea... Georgewilliamherbert 21:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Problem Reaction Solution

Hello. You have deleted, without comment, the deletion tag for Problem Reaction Solution. This article has already been deleted once (Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_23#Problem-Reaction-Solution). You may want to comment on this to prevent this article being deleted again. Best regards, Sandstein 08:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Haydar

Striver, It seems there is goup of guys who got really angry when they see Haydar-e-l-Karrar and they are bringing all names of Haydar to put in the page. Although it looks like they wuld also want to bring every Ali name and make the Ali page a disambig page, I do not want to get their low level of revert wars. So I made it a seperate page.Peace 129. 22:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC) TPW 22:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if this article were are true name article, your edits would be inappropriate, IMHO. As it stands, it is a disambiguation page which happens to give the Arabic spelling of the name. Your efforts would be better spent in finding the many Haydars for which Misplaced Pages does not yet have articles and adding them to the page, rather than forking Ali. Physchim62 (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Jersey Devil 11:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

store

• Misplaced Pages:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild

User:Kaimiddleton, User:Bov, User:Ombudsman, User:Zen-master, User:EyesAllMine, User:Adam Adler.

snowball's chance in hell

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Striver&dbname=enwiki

to do

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002/02/27/usat-pollresults.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Strategic_Defense_Initiative&curid=62670&diff=41539543&oldid=41482431

George F. Kennan Award

{{Category:Sahaba}}

Striver, you've been using the category page as a template and I want to know your reasoning. I personally think it's needless since the opening paragraph usually mentions that the person is a sahaba. Using templates also create more server load and is harder on the servers. You should discuss these thigns before you go off and do them. I moved teh category to the bottom on Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr before I had seen you doing it many places... I'm not going to change the others now but I just want you to talk with others... if they agree then that'd be good.

I don't exactly know what happened with your leaving and all but... I hope you're doing well. In any case reading your writing recently, it seems your English has improved a fair amount :) So, that's a good thing about Misplaced Pages, no? Okay, have a good day. gren グレン 16:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

But you added that to the style guide... did anyone concur? My problem is that many articles says "XXXXX was a member of the sahaba" in the first sentence... and using the category to say that as well just makes it redundant since they'd get the same information from the first sentence. It just seems like it goes against most other style guides and it doesn't tell us anything we don't already know.

By accuracy I mean that not all Sahaba were Muslims... I forget his name off hand... but the uncle that always protected Muhammad never converted... and wasn't he a Sahaba? gren グレン 16:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay... well, the category Sahaba would be very complicated... you can remove the accuracy if you want... because, with the difference in Sunni / Shia belief it gets too complex. (My Sunni teacher was talking about my example...) To the Shia, all Sahaba were Muslims? I do disagree with using the Sahaba thing... but I won't revert them... it does seem to me that in time they will get removed... but... make sure you put ] at the bottom and not at the top with {{Category:Sahaba}}. Since the category definitely belongs with the other categories at the bottom. Sound good? gren グレン 16:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Another problem is... I was just thinking of adding text to Category:Sahaba that would say "some of these Sahaba are only Sunni and others only Shia. Some are believed by the Shia to be Muslims while the Sunni believe that they were not. It is not conclusively known either way but they are considered Sahaba by some major group." -- which would show up on all of the Sahaba pages... which is not so good. gren グレン 16:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't remove the category... that's necessary. Just put it at the bottom with the other categories. gren グレン 19:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Danish humour

"People hardly ever make use of the freedom they have. For example, the freedom of thought. Instead they demand freedom of speech as a compensation." Søren Kierkegaard DanielDemaret 17:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 8% for major edits and 77% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 23:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Vote solicitation

Hello, it's come to my attention you're requesting votes on people's talk pages for some articles that are on AFD. There was a complaint about it so I just wanted to let you know there is a guideline regarding that on WP:SPAM (subsection link:here). This is a guideline and not a policy so you may personally disagree with it, and that is ok, I just wanted to make sure you were at least aware of it. If you have any questions feel free to ask on my talk page. :D - cohesion★talk 00:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. May i ask what complaints? I did not send out messages at random, rather to people i know hade voted in similar cases. Thanks again and peace. --Striver 00:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I just wanted to mention the guideline, I looked at your contributions, and I don't really think you solicited very many people so, personally, I don't see a problem. See you around :D - cohesion★talk 01:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy factualist

Your article has been listed for deletion; please add your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy factualist. The concern is clearly that this is a newly invented term with insufficient cultural currency to merit an article, so please see if you can prove otherwise. Postdlf 03:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for keeping an eye on all those articles for everybody. Just remember to relax a bit if you need to. What you are doing seems like it might be a bit stressful. SkeenaR 05:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The Energizer Bunny

Dude, you crack me up with your take-no-prisoners battle-on-multiple-fronts approach. Thank you for being one of my favorite Misplaced Pages users. I once nominated User:SkeenaR for being King of Conspiracy Spotters. I now make my second nomination, and dub you "The Energizer Bunny." Peace to you my friend. Morton devonshire 10:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah babe, you really make my toes curl. MortonsSockpuppet 10:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

AFD

No problem! I left a vote on The Citizens' Commission on 9-11, but unfortunately could not decide one way or the other on Problem Reaction Solution... GregorB 20:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

To make a long story short: your argument won. My vote is keep; see the AfD page for my rationale.

Unfortunately, the odds are stacked against the article as it is. In case it doesn't survive the AfD, and you'd like to try again, here's some advice:

1. Cut down on Icke. This puts people off (myself included). That lengthy quote of his is highly POV, as it is focused more on his views than on the term itself, and is as such more of a liability than an asset.
2. Cut down the quotes in general.
3. Make an article shorter and more to the point. Simply cut things out if necessary. Less material for detractors to pick on.
4. Acknowledge that this is mainly conspiracy theorists' stuff. Because - let's face it - it is. And what of it? This doesn't say they're right, nor does it say they're wrong.

Try it: I can't guarantee it will succeed, but you'll see the difference. Cheers... GregorB 21:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocking policy

I am close to just blocking you for disruption. I would of course put it up for review. I may just invoke WP:IAR and do it. You POV pushing agenda and constant creation of completely non notable articles and the trolling incessant commentary in some discussion pages, where you go on and on about the same tired nonsense are in no way helping this project. I am an admistrator and with that in mind, I am held to a higher standard, but I do tire of POV pushers and those with disruptive behaviors. I'm going to think this over and I am hoping that should you continue to behave the way you have, then you should expect what may come next. I would review our blocking policy especially the section at the top of the page after you click this link . Respectfully, --MONGO 22:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoo, Scary!!! SkeenaR 05:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL! --Striver 05:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Judging from MONGO's criticisms and tendency to favor certain types of deletions, it might be said that calling Striver a pov-pusher is an example of the teapot calling the kettle black, and it borders on being an ad hominem fallacy; likewise, the trolling remark. Relentless efforts to delete content can become quite distracting to the objective of actually building an encyclopedia. Comments about blocking seem out of line here, especially since MONGO seems to have become involved in attempts to delete Striver's good faith contributions. Hopefully, MONGO will tone down the charged rhetoric after thinking things over a little more carefully. Ombudsman 08:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Man, just look at MONGO's post and translate:

"I'm a reasonably kind of guy, and I'll think carefully about it before I boot you for your opinion, but if you keep contributing, I'll use my superior power to win the argument. I'm a nice guy really though, and I will consider it first"

Just how does one become an admin? - Cathal 20:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

New articles

I think at least some of the subjects you've chosen to make new articles on probably do deserve coverage, but they're awfully sloppy - stubs stretched out to articles by making skeletal outlines, and rife with spelling errors. You know you're under closer scrutiny now - you'd do better to work on an article in a word processor, get it to a decent length with plenty of references and/or citations, spellcheck it, and then submit it only then. Schizombie 23:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This has gone beyond simple POV edits and is now vandalism you have been asked nicely several times by admins and users to stop your edits and reverts claiming "vandalism" when no vandalism has occured. You have also removed speedy delete tags with the intention to prevent speedy deletions and in one case you used profanity when talking to a member violating Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks .

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Jersey Devil 01:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

More blocking threats

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Jersey Devil 01:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

some advice ...

Please take a moment to reconsider your userpage. It escapes being a personal attack only by not naming names, and a casual observer can readily tell who you mean. It's inappropriate, and it's not helping you.

I'm not taking any side in your dispute with other users here. I just don't think your userpage is constructive. I've voted Keep in most of the AfD's in re. your articles, and don't have any opinion on your disputes with other users, except to say that they shouldn't be happening, and that you can help that by not using your userpage as a platform in this dispute.

Thanks :)

— User:Adrian/zap2.js 02:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to keep Misplaced Pages civil! For grace in the face of a request that I probably should have worded better + other adverse circumstances, I award you this hideous teacup, so that you'll always have tea & sympathy on Misplaced Pages :)

— User:Adrian/zap2.js 02:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation

Please stop reverting Cynthia McKinney. You have violated the three revert rule. Any further reversions will subject you to being blocked. --rogerd 03:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No i have not! Its the 3RR, not the 2RR.--Striver 03:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I counted first second third, but I didn't plan on enforcing it until another revert was done. --rogerd 03:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then i guess "You have violated the three revert rule" was a unfortunate way of saying "watch out, or you might tviolated the three revert rule". --Striver 03:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right, it is not enforced until the 4th reversion. I hope that you and the other parties could resolve this peacefully. Thanks --rogerd 03:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Acctualy, i see no dispute in the first place. Have a good day, and peace! --Striver 03:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages's three revert rule policy does not mean you are entitled to 3 reverts per day, but you are certainly blocakable if you exceed this. regardless, edit summaries that clearly show you are gaming the policy are enough reasons to block you for 3RR for 24 hours. This is, of course, small potatoes to the disruption you are engaging in in numerous areas. I have blocked you for 24 hours to allow you to reassess your intent and the value of your contributions.--MONGO 08:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• • How is Striver gaming the policy when he reverted three times today, and then stopped? It's not three article changes per day, it's three reverts, and Striver only made three reverts after the counter-edits started. And the policy outright says that you aren't supposed to block someone if you participate in the editing on that article that day... You're supposed to go to ANI. Striver certainly isn't a spammer or vandalizer, this is a content dispute. Complex and evolving across many articles, but content dispute (perhaps WP:POINT but mostly content, I think). Calling what he did gaming the 3RR rule is assuming bad faith. Georgewilliamherbert 10:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • More than one revert over a content dispute is too many, but my reading of that edit summary is somewhat less clear than yours. There are a lot of policies & guidelines here that lend themselves to technicalities and vagaries of reading, but WP:AGF is not one of them. Nothing is lost by assuming the best of your fellow editors. I'm confident that you yourself acted out of a genuine belief that User:Striver was gaming WP:3RR, and I hope you'll remain open to alternative interpretations.

— User:Adrian/zap2.js 12:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and just for the record, my third revert was also acompanied by some edits, it was not only a revert:

And also, do note that i was aware of people wanting to nail me for something, so i did write that it was my last revert on my edit summary.

And one last thing: Do not forget that rogerd, a admin, cleared my of any accusations of violating 3RR rule. Only after MONGO realized that i was cleared of charges that he decided to take matters in his own hand, overthought rogerd's decision and unilaterally came and blocked me. And also, do note that MONGO has not substantiated his charge of me "gaming the rules", just doing two reverts, and one last revert in order to add more sectioning is not "gaming the rules" in my book. Maybe doing exactly 3 reverts per day in a week on the same article would be "gaming the rules".

As i view it, MONGO just wanted to block me for any reason, he even threatened to ignore all rules and just block me outright. But he found an excuse to block me without taking the maters to some non-involved admin. And i belive it is dangerous if we let admins who are highly involved in maters to block people on dubious grounds, even breaking some rules in the process, like not being involved in a revert war when blocking for 3RR, specially when there even wasn't any 3RR violation to begin with!

An i also belive it is a bad development when other admins let him get away with this. If the other admins truly belived i deserved to be blocked, they should have unblocked me, reprehended or admonished MONGO for a his actions, and then have blocked me on a vaild ground.

As is now, i am being blocked for something i am inocent of, and the other admins are allowing it. I view that as a threat to Wikipedias integrity. --Striver 01:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, im still blocked

Striver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (for the links to check what is going on) Cynthia_McKinney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

MONGO, you should'nt have blocked me. You abused your admin priviliges, and i will do my best to see that you will lose them.

What is really bad, is that after blocking me a 08:59, 27, you went on and AFD'd my guild at 09:22, 27, 23 minutes later, devoiding me of any venue to defend my guild, wich is a carbon copy of my other succesfull guild, from your bad faith nomination, as well as locking me out of several AFD's you and your lynch mob is personaly involved in.

If you imidiatly unblock me and apologise, i will forgive but not forget. Persist in this bad faith admin abuse, and i will do my best to see you losing them. --Striver 14:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The project is an attack page as clearly shown in the project discussion page...this is not what a wikiProject is supposed to be about. It is the only article that you have written that I nominated for deletion. Your block is only 24 hours and the Project will be up for a vote of deletion for at least a week so you'll have ample opportunity to "defend" it once your block expires. I won't remove the block and it is under scrutiny now as I write this over at AN/I if you care to have a look. I am hoping that you return with a different attitude towards me and towards others you have been in disagreement with. I am not going to threaten you, but I have gotten numerous editors that have contacted me in my talk page and in email that want to file arbitratiuon against you...this is something I do not want to to do as I know you have been around awhile and have a lot of edits, most of which I am sure are decent. I'm hoping that when your block ends, everyone will have cooled off and you won't be facing arbcom.--MONGO 15:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Bro, you dont get me, i am thinking about filing a arbitration against you. As for the user comment section in the conspiration Guild, its a mirror Copy of the one in the Muslim Guild. --Striver 15:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

brother striver do not waste ur time in idiot project like this there is many sites need u like al-islam.org and answering-ansar.org so go there and work as hard as u can may Allah bless u akhi time is gold --82.194.62.22 17:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you bro, i appreciate it. (Yeah, i know: "so what? its just a suck pupet").

For anyone following this: i cant defend myself here.

--Striver 17:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record: this is NOT my suckpupet, i dont know that IP, i have never seen it before as far as i know, i dont know that person, no, in no way am i linked to that. --Striver 17:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Striver is right -- that's another Shi'a entirely, one who seems to be under the delusion that I'm a Salafi. Zora 21:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Threatening people with wiki-action is probably the least effective way ever to get unblocked. Editorial disputes don't have to be a conflict, and if you feel you're being attacked, you don't have to respond in kind. I *do* understand why you feel singled out, but you're *not* helping yourself. The best thing you can do is take a deep breath and measure your words.

— User:Adrian/zap2.js 20:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your comment to Striver, but I too have been wondering if taking this to Arb wasn't going to be necessary, on several levels and directions. Mongo is responding civilly, but I believe they have been wrong and at bent WP admin policy regarding blocks, though Striver isn't innocent in all of this. Several bad things are happening on several levels, from the AfD's which started the whole frufru ending with the questionable block by an admin who'd been reverting him, certainly including Striver's pushing and activism as bad things.

I think that it's going to be resolvable short of that drastic an action, especially since the key "high level" people against Striver are civil and levelheaded admins who are listening to reasonable discussion and feedback and responding appropriately. But Striver's not off base thinking that it may be necessary in the end. I think he's likely to get some sanctions if it comes to that and Arbcom agrees to take the case, but I don't think he'd be the only one. Georgewilliamherbert 21:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh, wondered why I haven't seen your name on my watchlist lately. First, I believe none of the AFD's will expire before tommorow, so this was as good a time as any for a 24-hour block if the intent was for cooling off. I toyed with the idea of proposing a 7-day block on creation of articles to encourage you to improve your existing ones, but that may be outside the abilities of the site. In light of the fact that you had several articles being afd'd and were still expending your effort creating stubs rather than shoring up and defending your work except on the talk pages, it's not unreasonable that your motives were suspect. After all, due to the process, you had five days of airtime for your articles regardless of the outcome of the afd and you seemed hell-bent on creating more. Note what User:Schizombie is doing for the Bowman page and take a note from him. He's trying to shore up the article, and both of us are actively researching the man (him to credit, me to discredit). Nonetheless, we're going back and forth about the article and good research is being done.--Mmx1 04:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:Assume Good Faith

Been following some of Striver's article creations and his interactions on the 9/11 Conspiracy theories and similar pages. What I've noticed is that Stiver is an energetic advocate for his positions, engaged on multiple fronts. Yes, he strays into POV-land often, but not because he's trying to deliberately mislead anyone -- it's born from his perspective. Stiver and I are on opposite ends of most political debates, and I have voted for deletion of several of his articles, but his voice is valuable here. Sometimes when someone gets the notice of one administrator, a kind of piling-on occurs, often with the subsequent commentators jumping in with little or no information. To an outsider, it looks like that's what's been going on here. The guy is not perfect, but he's valuable nonetheless because he represents an obviously non-Western editing perspective. I implore you to grant him some grace and ease up, despite his infractions here. We are all learning here. Thanks. Morton devonshire 21:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

POV?

I repeatdly get the accusation of bein pov, extrem pov, pov warrior and such. What i NEVER get is a example of how i am pov. Eith i am not a pov writer, and the people claiming so are not correct in their statements, or they do not bother to show me where i am pov i order to stop that behavior. Right now, i belive the former to be the more accurate theis.--Striver 00:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ref. You said it yourself. Please see WP:NPOV. TKE 22:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert

I want to show my appreciation to Georgewilliamherbert. Although he does not agree with my point of view regarding what is refered to "conspriacy theoris", he shares my view of how i am being treated. I can't express in words how much i appreciate his long defence of me at Administrators' noticeboard. THANKS! --Striver 00:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Is Striver POV?

I vigurosly dipute the claim of me writing pov. It has become a rallying cry that "Striver is a blatant POV violator". If that is the case, prove it! Show WHERE i am pov, give a quote, anyting.--Striver 00:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You are pushing a POV - namely one that the official story of 9-11 is wrong. You admit it's a minority view, though you claim a significant minority view. Your actions since the 22nd have been to push articles of marginal worth to prop up the significance of that minority. Q.E.D. --Mmx1 04:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, great, another one calling me POV pusher withouth giving me a single quote as proof.

What you are reffering to is nothing more than causal editing on a subject that i have intrest in. Is a Christian POV pushing when creating or editing articles on Christianity? Is a Jew POV pushing when editing or creating a article about Jewism? I am POV pushing meearly on the account of editing and creating? Give me a Offical Wikipeida policiy that states one is POV pushing when creating or editing articles one is intrested in. Of course, you cant, so dont give me that crap. --Striver 09:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil. For a little monologuing on how to be biased while on the outside appearing to be balanced check out this little rant I came up with after one too many beers. Have you ever accidentally done something that could be seen that way? Weregerbil 09:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. What you gave me was intresting, but in no way a official, or even a inofficial wikipedia policy. It was nothing more than a User page. And further, the user page gave the correct antidode, either to balance by adding a equal among of the other side, or triming it down. However, it it didnt even sugest that the article was POV. And specialy absolutly nothing about AFD'ing the whole article. Again, can i have concrete proof o my editing being pov? I dont want to hear opinons, i want examples. --Striver 09:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed that rant is not anyone's official policy. Just like it explicitly states on the very first line of text... Good thing that we are both clear on that.

As to bias, please see WP:NPOVUW: To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. ... views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all. That is official policy, by the way. Giving undue weight to the opinions of a small group of people gives the reader of an article a false understanding of matters. When writing about a journalist you somehow manage to spend a disproportionate amount of time on 9/11 conspiracy theories, with no evidence that those theories indeed are the major focus of the journalist's career. Other things are dismissed with a one liner, and there is a collection of conspiracy links at the bottom of the article. Leaves the reader with the false impression that the journalist is primarily a conspiracy nut.

What concerns me is that you display no sign of understanding (or admitting?) how an article can be thoroughly biased that way. Weregerbil 11:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You missed to quote this part:

None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Misplaced Pages. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.

This clearly says that the AFD'ing of article about 9/11 truthmovements such the citizens commsion, scholars for 9/11 Truth and the Problem Reaction Solution articles are just plain wrong. let me again quote that official policy

None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Misplaced Pages. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.

Ill repeat myself: Its just plain wrong to delete articles such as S9/11T.

As for jornalists, could you give a practial example, so that we know what we are talking about?

I dont understand how i write POV, and its not that i understan and deny it, i just dont get what you mean.

From my point of view, you just dont like the views, reject them, feel outraged that anyone can have them, and blindly delete, AFD or censor anyting even remotly related to the subject. The only thing you accept is to shuving everything in some article that gives minimal attention to the proponets of the subject, you just cant stand to have the proponets to have their own biography, or having events related to it represented, or having the terms explained in detail.

I view that as nothing more than hatemongering, censure, and yes, i would even go so far as sayin bigotry. I refuse to see the opinion of a significant minority being delete on those gruonds. And you cant stand me defending their Misplaced Pages given right to exist:

as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Misplaced Pages.

And when you are confronted with someone determined to make sure they get "as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views", you call me with empty rallying cries such as me being POV, dont POINT, soapboxing or anything else you can come up with.

That is my view of it, i dont view it that way because i enjoy conflict, i hate the stress this gives me. But if i have to chose between having the whole lynch mob against me, and having my views censored, then i put up a fight.

I still do not see how i am POV, i am very familiar with the policy you quoted. It says that a insignicant minorities view should not be given undue space, but have you read how a insignicant minority is defined? Mu view does not mach that definitoin, my view maches the definition of a "significant" minority, actualy even a majority in countries where i came from.

"Believe news reports that Arabs carried out Sept. 11 attacks:

Pakistan: True: 4%,Not true: 86%

Total: True: 18%,Not true: 61%

I look forward to your anwer. Peace--Striver 12:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please let me quote the bit you quoted thrice for a fourth time:

None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views.

Here is a an article obstensibly about a journalist that somehow manages to focus on conspiracy theories that the article's author coincidentally appears to have strong opinions about. According IMDB he has (co-)written ten movies / TV shows, (co-)produced eight, (co-)edited two, appeared in four, plus writings (not enumerated on IMDB so I don't know how many). Somehow in the article the brightest spotlight by far falls on selected bits about a 9/11 conspiracy book. Other things are mentioned, but the greatest focus is on the article author's pet bias. On a page that is not specifically devoted to those views. You don't see how this might be construed as somewhat biased?

This is in answer to your questions about why your edits can be seen as biased. I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm trying to answer your question. I don't really know how to answer to you so that you won't try to turn the answer into an argument. I'm not trying to discuss your AfD's, I'm trying to explain how a superficially factual article can be biased and misleading by focusing on some particular biased detail. I'm at a loss as how to answer your question more clearly. Weregerbil 13:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry of being a bit defensiv. Its just that i feel im attack at all fronts, many times withtout proper reason, and that gives me a urge to defend myself all over the place.

Thank you for coping with me, and giving a concrete answer.

Ok, to the issue. When i created the article, my main aim was to give a biography to a person notable in a minority group. For example, look at Oolong in order to see a "person" that is notable to a minority.

I stated by adding what was known to him here .... (i got to go, ill finish this when i get back)

Striver, just so you know, consensus does not dictate truth. 99 percent of the world could believe that the 9/11 attack was perpetrated by the American government or that the WTC was demolished by internal explosives, but they'd still be wrong. Certainly I'm biased, I'm biased to err on the side of truth and logic. GreatGatsby 17:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

MONGO

As for calling someone by their usename ...well what are usernames for if you can't alert people on talkpages...? If you keep making threats against me MONGO (a dishonourable way of trying to put people off editing this page) I will go for arbitration with you about that AND this article.- User:max rspct,

--Striver 01:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm the editor Striver was cussing out and I've continually butted head with him over his edits to Islam-related articles. That said, I think Mongo was unfair to Striver in imposing the ban. Striver hadn't broken the 3RR rule yet and there is no explicit rule against creating a flood of articles supporting one's position -- though I wish there were. Mongo should have recused himself, as he seems to have been protecting HIS edits against Striver's conspiracy theories. -Zora

--Striver 01:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaron

Another example of how they just AFD anything i touched, just because i touched it:

I would not have renominated this so soon had the first nomination resulted in a "keep" consensus, but with no consensus at all, I couldn't come up with any logical reason not to give it another go, where presumably a somewhat different group of editors would participate in the debate. (For the record, I did not participate in the original nomination, and indeed was unaware it had even taken place until I read the articles talk page a few hours ago.) -User:Aaron

Wait... you < bang head > didn't look < bang head > at the talk page < bang head > before you AfD'ed it? -User:Georgewilliamherbert

That is not what I said; you're misreading my statement. All I meant was that I had not been following this article at all until a few hours before I made this nomination -Aaron

Jersey Devil

nn writer and part of User:Striver's WP:POINT. The user himself has several majority delete afd's and has attacked other contributing wikipedians. An Admin is already looking to block the user from editting wikipedia. -Jersey Devil

Is this an AfD nomination? 'cos your nom explores the article author significantly more than it explores the article. Adrian-

You keep mentioning WP:POINT, and I'm not seeing it. What is the point Striver is trying to make by disrupting Misplaced Pages? It seems to me he is trying to get some information out there, but that's not disruption. He may be violating WP:SOAP, or wrong, deluded, POV, who knows, but not in violation of WP:POINT. -Rodii

--Striver 01:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The recent spate of 9/11 AfDs that you have been bringing to my attention

Thanks for bringing them to my attention, and thanks for remaining civil during them. Your opponents seem to saying you should be blocked etc, and to me this is not assuming good faith, which is a great shame. If you have any other AfDs you want me to take a look at, please keep contacting me via my Talk page.

However, I would warn you that I will not (and indeed have not) support all of your keeps. my thoughts on AfDs can be found here; in a nutshell, I care very much for the deletion policy and very little for anything else. If you still feel, having read the policy, that your articles are worth adding to Misplaced Pages, then if I agree with you will gladly vote keep in any AfD against them. However, I will not vote keep for th sake of it. I hope this is satisfactory to you. Batmanand | Talk 14:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

In terms of the POV dispute you are having over at the 9/11 article, I think I disagree with you. There is a whole section and subarticle about conspiracy theories to do with 9/11. The article, to me, reads as fairly balanced. It acknowledges there are other opinions, and gives them a sub-article. What precisely is your concern? Batmanand | Talk 15:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why you think that your assertions should go in the main article when there is a sub-article. The article itself should stick to the main POV, unless and until someone can provide verifiable evidence that the Bin Laden story is false. At the moment, the "9/11 truth movement" POV seems to be asserting a lot. Now that is fine, but that should go in a sub-article. Just because a lot of people believe something does not mean it should go in the main article. A case in point is the Moon landing article and its Apollo moon landing hoax accusations sub-article. Why is the 9/11 case any different? Batmanand | Talk 15:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, in the interests of informed decision-making, I have just re-read the whole of WP:NPOV. Secondly, thank you quoting policy in your arguments. It not only makes them more forceful, but also gets my attention! But onto the actual dispute.

The real issue here is whether a significant-enough minority of people, in the USA or the world at large (or both) contest the Bin Laden theory, such that the opposite view should be moved from the sub-article to the main 9/11 article. If you reject the use of the Moon landings as an example, may I propose two more: Age of the Earth and Age of the Universe. In both cases, a siginificant number of people - both in the US and even more in the world at large - dispute the facts presented in the articles. The salient thing to note about both is as follows: both acknowledge that there are other POVs, and may discuss them briefly (although note that both are shortish articles - as such in an article of the length of the 9/11 one it is probably best to put pretty much all the discussion in the sub-article, for the sake of brevity). But none of them give real credence to these views. Why? Because the prevailing academic, evidence-based and (I hate to say this but in the cases of the two Ages articles it is true) educated view is that the Earth/Universe is very old indeed. As I said, unless you can come up with substantive evidence from a good number of reputable academics (not just a small handful, and not an opinion poll), in the case of an academic dispute (which this, ultimately, is) the view of the majority of serious academics (that Bin Laden) did it should be put in the main article, and the views of the small minority of serious academics should be put in the sub-article. Batmanand | Talk 16:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Update headings on AFD

Hi,

When you add a heading into the middle of an AFD discussion, please use a level 4 heading or lower (e.g. ====Update====), to avoid breaking the outline of the main page. Thanks! Stifle 16:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Restoring userpage history

Greetings Striver. As per your request on your current userpage, I have restored the edit history for your former userpage. It doesn't affect your current design, but now you should be able to access all of the old stuff. Regards, --Fire Star 03:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

Just a heads up... five articles you have contributed to significantly are up for deletion. joturner 22:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Mosques and graves

An article you started, Mosques and graves, has been proposed for deletion. Please see the article for details. NickelShoe 23:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Striver

I've read your contributions on Jimbo Wales's talk page. While I don't believe what you say about 9-11, your view should be given entry. I am not muslim or Middle eastern, so I suppose it is harder for me to believe what you say. By the way your English is quite good. I hope the rest of your Misplaced Pages expieriences work better for you.Cameron Nedland 23:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I don't speak any Arabic/Persian/Turkish...Say, what is your native languge? All I know is some Spanish and English as my native tongue.Cameron Nedland 00:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Haydar

Please contribute to the discussion on the talk page of this article before reverting it again. Physchim62 (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Islamic athletics

Hi Striver! The article at Islamic athletics is an interesting subject and looks like it could be on the way to being quite informative. However, I think the topic of the article woudl be clearer if it were moved to Athletics in Islam/Athletics and Islam or something like that. Out of interest, is there any particular reason the "heavyweight boxing" is mentioned as having restrictions due to the harm without reason? I would have thought that the same could be said of boxing, regardless of the weight division. JPD (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Badr

Congratulations on this achieving Featured Article status. Dlyons493 Talk 21:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Another AFD

I think that this may interest you: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gatekeeper (politics). Thanks, HK 06:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• I nominated an article that you created, Bible und Muhammed, for deletion. If you think that the article is salvageable, or that I'm mistaken, please comment on its deletion page. Please see the Guide to deletion if you have any questions about Misplaced Pages's deletion process. -- ~~~~ Sandstein 11:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Striver about the Shi'a Guild, is there no way that it can be merged into the Muslim guild? There aren't many members and it would be good if we all work together. So I want to hear from you before I can vote. --a.n.o.n.y.m 17:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Well I think that you are right that some attention might be lost over the Shi'a pages but as long as we have the Shi'a editors I don't think that it will. :) Alsoif some people are stalking you then that is against Misplaced Pages policy and they can be blocked for it so I hope that they are warned. And Afd's which aren't checked will fail so don't worry. --a.n.o.n.y.m 17:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Start Here, I think

I think, re: the stalking, you start Here, to let the admins investigate first... but I'm not 100% on that.--Irishpunktom\ 18:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Striver you can report this here . --a.n.o.n.y.m 23:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hadith articles

For my convenience I will talk about Hadith of Umar's speech of forbidding Mut'ah, althoug this applies to almost every hadith article you have created. You asked me about sourced material. You first should read the section in Misplaced Pages:No original research about primary and secondary sources. Your use of quoting the hadith and extrapolating is original research much of the time. Which needs to be fixed. Another this is the titles of the articles. It's the most rudimentary part and it is not sourced. Take the article I indicated and google search for it. The only results you get are Misplaced Pages. Nowhere else is that hadith called what you call it. That is the utmost original search. Striver, what do the scholarly sources call this hadith? That's what the article should be called... not some name that you have given the hadith describing it. Show me a source that uses "Hadith of Umar's speech of forbidding Mut'ah"... if you have a good source for that I'd be delighted... but as of now all of those articles should be deleted right away because even the titles are just made up by you... you need to learn what original research is. You don't use primary sources to discuss the primary source itself in an encyclopedia... you read commentaries about it... and you don't make up names for these sources either. This is why I oppose those hadith articles... are the hadith notable? I have seen nothing to prove they are because you only quote the hadith itself for the most part. Show me sources for those titles. That would be a great start. gren グレン 09:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ray McGovern

Why have you radically altered this page? You deleted an enormous amount of pertinent information, and replaced it with sentences like, "He is reportedly an active member of the Christian Community" along with quotes such as "He said: the president should be impeached." The headings are grouped completely randomly - e.g. one heading is just "Bush" and most information beneath the headings are just quotes. This is supposed to be a biographical article, not a random collection of stuff he said. I'm going to revert to my original edit and feel free to discuss and make minor changes as you see fit. Thanks, Ryan4 21:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Examples of your best work

In fairness, I'll take a look at Nikah Mut'ah, Tawhid, Bilal as examples of what you think represent very strong articles that became so primarily or solely through your own efforts; that is why I indicated at User talk:Georgewilliamherbert#Jersey Devil RfC I'd be interested. However, a quick look indicates that while they are certainly better than the vast majority of your articles, they are not "very strong" or even good (and at least the first seems to have substantial contributions by others). Just to start with, the intro to the first article is quite poor, but I'll read the whole thing carefully later and put constructive criticism on the talk page for the article. These three are clearly not articles that should be AfDd, though, so don't worry about that; they just need improving. If somebody did AfD them (which I think unlikely), they'd be easy keep recommendations from me. Esquizombi 00:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Attack page

Okay, I politely request you remove this link to me from User:Striver/Yes, i said "fuck you"... page you created. I blocked you for a lot of reasons and you can't possibly not understand them. Do you think I am the only editor that sees your contributions as problematic?--MONGO 06:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Oh

Hello! No worries about your page! We all make simple mistakes from time to time. Thanks for being understanding :-) Regards,  (aeropagitica)  23:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC on Jersey Devil

I regret to advise you that the user conduct RFC you filed against Jersey Devil was not certified by two or more users within 48 hours of its creation, and as a result it has been deleted. Stifle 23:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I forgot about that! that was my first rfc. Can it be un-done? In any case, could you give me a copy of the page and talk page? Thx and peace.--Striver 23:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Generally, no, but since User:Jersey Devil requested it, I have put it at User:Jersey Devil/RFC. Stifle 09:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding unreliable material

Why did you add the link for the two forged sura's to the Quran article. They are forgeries. Check the sources for the two sura's. Thanks. --Aminz 02:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at:

Why are you teasing me? Why did you hide the truth when you knew that the two sura's were forged? --Aminz 07:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Afds

Yes I saw the list. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m 16:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Dramatic oversectioning

It's not exactly vandalism, but the "micro-timeline" style you are trying to rewrite/revert the Cynthia McKinney article in is entirely inappropriate for WP biographies. Please take a look at any bio for another congressperson (or in general, activist, politician, etc). This sort of strictly date-oriented sectioning down to the sentence or short paragraph is simply not done; and it's not done with the very good reason that it reads extremely poorly. In a more reasonable sized section (several paragraphs, at least), the prose describes the dates associated with the events/actions being described.

Actually, ther's quite a bit of purple prose (and partial sentences, awkward wordings, outright repetitions, etc) in the main text remaining... but reverting my efforts to clean it up is in extremely rude form. Please don't do that! And don't add back so many headings... there are probably too many remaining even with my removals, but I'll probably make another pass or three at cleanup. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent AfDs

They have more in common beyond being created by you; they are all manifestly flawed. I will vote keep when I can (though I think the majority of the AfDs were reasonable to propose for deletion), but you could avoid AfDs by writing better articles. That is important. Quality>quantity. Provide sources, context, categories, etc. You can delegate expansion of articles to others (you could even tag them {{expand}} yourself when you make them), but they have to be sound in the meantime. Since you tend to create stubs, do see WP:STUB. Make sure they are at least three sentences long. Make sure they provide enough information so that "an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial Internet search or a few minutes in a reference library."

What is the Arabic for "recommended precaution," for example and the most common English transliteration of the term? That should be in that article. What are the other fiqh terms Marjas use? Is there a term that refers to all those terms collectively (Fard mentions "al-ahkam al-khamsa")? Could possibly all the fiqh terms be located on one single page for ease of consultation, rather than be scattered around as stubs? Esquizombi 20:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at those, but I think even Inclusionists and Eventualists would hold that there are certain standards to be met even for stubs. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that those standards be followed. If you don't agree with them, you can try to involve yourself in the process of rewriting the policy. Myself, I don't always advocate deletion or always keeping, and I feel that an article should have value both immediately and in the long run. It's OK if for the time being an article's value is limited and grows over time, but it still has to hold up to WP:STUB and other policies in the meantime. It would help your case so much if you went about adding new content in a more organized, thoughtful way. Esquizombi 00:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

When discussing stubs, I didn't have in mind the lack of stub tags (though your articles do sometimes lack them, and often lack categories, e.g. Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan). I have more in mind WP:STUB#Essential information and WP:STUB#Ideal stub article. Esquizombi 00:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Recommended precaution

Hi Striver. I've made some edits to the article. Could you take a look if they are OK? Thanks. Lambiam 00:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Striver, I waited for the result of the AfD discussion to respond to the issues you raised on the talk page. Now the result is Keep, but unfortunately I will have very little time and Internet connectivity until some time in April. Perhaps you could look for sources in the meantime. I cannot read Arabic or Persian, and do not have access to a library. Lambiam 21:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

notes

My own notes relevant to wikipedia, not intended for anything else.

Hi

Hi. I would like ask you to reevaluate your desicion on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shrines, mosques and graves, since allmost all of those delete votes was made before the article was updated. Just take a look at the afd page and you will see a clear shift in voting after i updated the article to over 100 times the volume it was when nominated. --Striver 00:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Also, please rename it to Salafis and Traditional Muslims reagarding graves, shrines and mosques

I can't second-guess the decisions of voters. If you feel that I miscounted the votes or that the deletion process was not correctly followed, feel free to use WP:DRV. Stifle 00:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you not agree that the article being transformed so radicaly could result in some people voting delete on something that the article was not at the end?--Striver 00:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion on that. My job is not to assert opinions on the content of articles or on the reason for users' opinions, merely to properly count votes and determine consensus. Again, if you believe I have not followed the deletion process correctly, use WP:DRV. Stifle 00:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Google and censur"

Regarding your desire to insert a section labeled "Google and censur" in the Google page, I have posted the following comment at its Talk page: " mentions an isolated event regarding alleged actions by Google. If this even deserves mention, it should be added to the criticism and controversy section of the History of Google page. (also, it should have a complete heading title, not whatever the abbreviated "censur" is meant to represent." --mtz206 02:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I'd like to jump in on the RfC, but I don't know enough about the background situation to be able to help. However, you have my promise that I will help in protecting Islam articles against spurious AfD's and anti-Islamic POV. Articles about a religion that is already under threat of worldwide persecution need special care and guarding. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 18:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Certifying the RfC

Peace be upon you. Striver, I am not sure that your RfC was the best way of trying to handle the situation. The outside view by Isotope23 sums up what I feel, more or less. Nevertheless, I think you should be aware (if I understand this RfC thing, which I'm not sure I do) that you too must certify, that is, put something like :#~~~~ in subsection Users certifying the basis for this dispute before not too long, or else this one will go the same way as the previous attempt. Lambiam 02:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Although you shouldn't cite Lambian's belief on policy as rationale for being able to certify your own dispute (no offense meant to you at all Lambiam), he may in fact have been correct. That is why I re-added your certification. Because you, Lambian, and I were all editing the RfC at the same time (quite a coincidence), there was an edit conflict whereby your edit overwrote Lambian's and made no change between my version. I believe the conflict has been resolved. joturner 03:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry- I went to endorse, not certify. --Irishpunktom\ 10:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC comment

Striver, I hope you don't take what I said on the RfC comment personally. I think alot of what you are doing here with adding historical biographical content of major figures in Islam has a ton of value and is a good first step towards fixing an area that Misplaced Pages is very deficient in. I can't really help out with historical content because my knowledge of Islam is pretty basic (though unfortunately probably would be considered robust compared to the average American) and limited mostly to Sufism, but if you ever need help with copyediting an article, drop me a message on my talk page and I'll take a look at it.--Isotope23 14:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics

Hi,

We started a proposal Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics to state the existing policies coherently and make suggestions on improving the editorial standards in Wiki. I thought you might be interested in contributing to that proposal.

Unfortunately, a pro-porn and pro-offense lobby is trying to make this proposal a failure. They unilaterally started an approval poll although almost no one including me believe that it is time for a vote, simply because the policy is not ready. It is not even written completely.

Editors who thinks that it needs to be improved rather than killed by an unfair poll at the beginning of the proposal, started another poll ('Do we really need a poll at this stage?') at the same time. The poll is vandalized for a while but it is stable now. A NO vote on this ('Do we really need a poll now?') poll will strengthen the position of the editors who are willing to improve the policy further.

If you have concerns about the ethics and editorial standards in Wiki, please visit the page Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics with your suggestions on the policy. We have two subpages: Arguments and Sections. You might want to consider reviewing these pages as well...

Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 20:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad Links

The most likely reason for the removal of the links you referred to in the Muhammad article is that the links you are advocating aren't very relevant to the life of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The 100, although it mentions the Prophet as the most influential person in history, it serves no point but the assert the point-of-view that he was the most influential person of all-time. If we were to do that, that we'd have to link to novels and other works critical of the Prophet. But, of course, it would be better to just get rid of this reference and avoid the whole mess. The Family tree of Muhammad does relate to his life, but the article is in need of improvement (although that is not necessarily a reason to de-link it). Some of those other links (such as that to Zulfiqar) are irrelevant to someone learning about the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), while others subtly assert a positive point-of-view of the Prophet (like Seal of the Prophets).

And by the way, when were those links removed? I don't remember them being in the article. joturner 01:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I may remember them being on the article, but because of the reasons I stated above, I don't think most of them are necessary. joturner 01:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Risalah

Assalamu Alaikum, Could you possibly look over my change of Risalah and improve it if possible? Thank you. Zain 02:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Old antics again

Well, you're edit warring at Charlie Sheen, History of Google and still creating non articles such as Pull it. What can you tell me about Robert Bloom?--MONGO 16:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? Who is this Robert Bloom guy anyway? --Striver 00:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Striver, man, what the hell is pull it!? - Get your E-Mail set up--Irishpunktom\ 00:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Will do. "pull it" is just as the articl says, a industrial term denoting implosion by explosives. But as usual, people cant stand any article containing anything related to conspiracy charges. They usualy have two solutions: Delete the claim, or delete the article. This time, they decided to delete the article. Ill try to fix the E-Mail. Also, note MONGO harrasing me above.--Striver 00:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom

Striver,

If I were you, I'd take this jersey guy to ArbCom. He seems to be taking this deletion business personally.--Zereshk 22:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Pull it

Couldn't help but notice you were having some trouble at Pull it. In the future you can just use the {{db-author}} template. Hope this helps. savidan 02:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Eric L. Haney

Why did you AFD it when you created it? Esquizombi 00:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I am similarly confused: You created the article with an AfD tag, noted "article created by User:Striver as a part of his campaign of soapboxing his conspiracy non-sense" on the AfD page, and then voted to delete it saying "delete as strivercruft." What's up? --mtz206 14:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your response on my talk page, I think this is a violation of WP:POINT; you should not create pages, then list them as AfD in order to have the community decided if they are notable, all in an effort to protect your edits. --mtz206 15:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want the community to comment on the notability of an article, you could try using the {{Unencyclopedic}} tag and commenting in its discussion page. If you are considering a new article, but are unsure if it is notable to begin with, you could also start by requesting the creation of the article, and see what the community thinks. Creating an article, and then nominating it for deletion (along with voting for its own deletion) without making any comment that you are just wondering if the topic is notable enough to merit an article is (IMO) gaming the system. --mtz206 15:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Striver, this is very dissapointing. Here we have a perfectly legitimate article, and notable subject for an article, and you're pulling this WP:POINT stunt on it.

It's hard to defend you when you do go around doing things like this. Please cease and desist. Georgewilliamherbert 05:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Forking Charlie Sheen & Alex Jones interviews

It seems you are trying to make a WP:POINT by creating/editing other articles in order to include links to Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews, which is already up for deletion (see Showbiz Tonight, A.J. Hammer, Ellis Henican). This appears to be a POV fork and likely against WP policies & guidelines. Please don't include such links in these articles since it adds little encyclopedic value (ie, an interview with Charlie Sheen is not central to the history of these other journalists) --mtz206 02:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now to respond to all your points, but at the very least, perhaps you should wait until the results of the AfD on Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews before creating articles and inserting links to it into other articles. --mtz206 03:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult to assume good faith when you create an extremely stubby article (Showbiz Tonight, A.J. Hammer), having only one sentence for content, but then also insert a link to these interviews which have caused considerable controversey as to their notability and encyclopedic value (see here and here). --mtz206 12:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken. Just keep in mind when editing & creating articles that Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. When articles are disputed, in many cases, it is not that the community doesn't like or agree with the content of an article per se, but rather a concern that it just might not be suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --mtz206 14:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have changed my vote on this AfD to 'merge'. I think it is best to merge Sheen's statements with the 9/11 conspiracy theory page. I would suggest that is the best option for this article. Of course your entitled to maintain your position on 'keep'; but for the good of wikipedia I think this particular article is best merged into the larger article on the subject. --Northmeister 15:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem a bit surprised at the delete votes on the Sheen/911 article. There are a lot of news sources, and each of them covers a lot of stories, and not all of those stories will be encyclopedia-worthy. (Frankly, a lot of them aren't particularly newsworthy!) That Sheen has doubts about the "official" 911 story doesn't seem like anything special to me. More newsworthy if he contributed a substantial amount of money to new scientific research regarding the fall of the towers, or if he spoke before Congress or things along those lines. Noting Sheen sides with the 911 Truth movement is something of an Appeal to authority fallacy. Sheen has no special relevant knowledge, so his opinion on the issue is relatively irrelevant. Esquizombi 18:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey there

Several weeks ago I left the link on this talk page about a reference to how you present POV instead of NPOV, which is why you might recognize my name. Your contributions are good, I've been watching since I made a comment. Your approach to users in response is not so good. Something so small as using caps is taken as hostile, half of this talk page wouldn't exist if you could tone it down. Be bold in editing, not in talking. This is meant as constructive criticism and not an insult in any way, happy editing to you! TKE 08:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Just so i can say "i told you so"

I'm not sure what the purpose of this section of your user page is, but it appears to be content that users pages should not have, i.e., "Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Misplaced Pages." You might consider removing it, since user pages are meant to facilitate communication and participation in the Misplaced Pages project. --mtz206 02:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, there is another user I mentioned something to the other day regarding their list of articles they got deleted. As you wish though. Would you like this talk page archived? At least mid-Feb through mid-March, a month's worth. Lemme know and I'll do it. TKE 07:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nufayl ibn Abd al-Uzza

The time period for AfDs, as per Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy#Lag times, is five days and not seven. Your participation with a keep vote would not have affected the outcome as the article was also in a state that qualified it for speedy deletion under criteria A7 (article about a real person that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject).

If you have additional verifiable information regarding the article's subject, please feel free to recreate the article. The text of the original article when deleted was: Nufail ibn 'Abdu'l-'Uzza ibn Riyah ibn Qart ibn Razah ibn 'Adi ibn Ka'b ibn Lu'ayy was Khattab ibn Nufayl's father. Please be aware that the recreation will need to include sufficient information to demonstrate to someone unfamiliar with Nufayl ibn Abd al-Uzza why this individual should be considered notable. Failure to include this additional information may result in the article be deleted again under criteria A7 or G4 (substantially identical recreation of deleted material). --Allen3  19:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

James McGaugh

I removed the external link you added to James McGaugh. Encyclopedic articles on people do not need to include links to every news story in which the person appears. If this story is indeed deemed worthy, we should link to its original source , not the re-publication of it. --mtz206 22:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Afd

Sorry to see that the result was delete. Maybe you could merge it into Sahaba? --a.n.o.n.y.m 20:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews

Hi Striver,

I don't think this vote is going to reach consensus. How about we concentrate on improving the article (Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews)? I have made some layout changes. What do you think? Seabhcán 14:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Violation of WP:POINT

Please don't waste other editors' time as you did with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eric L. Haney. First I thought it was just a bad joke, but it seems this is not new for you, and you know very well that it's not correct. Doing a very good work elsewhere doesn't give you permission to indulge in this regard. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have learnet from it, as can be seen here: and here --Striver 22:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ruhollah Khomeini

Hi, Striver. Your comments and assistance at Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini would be appreciated. Specifically the issue there is the Shi'a concept of ritual purity and whether or not non-Muslims are considered ritually unclean and if this idea (that non-Muslims are unclean) was unique to Khomeini or general to Shi'ism. It would be great if you could help clarify this, as my knowledge of these issues are beyond the scope of my current knowledge. Thank you. SouthernComfort 12:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users. Set it up man!--Irishpunktom\ 20:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Adblock

The Prisonplanet site is hard to read with all that blinking and flashing stuff, especially for people with visual limitations or different browsers. AdBlock is a nice way to make it more accesible. But it's not a huge deal to me. If you think the link to adblock doesn't belong there, remove it and I won't re-add it. Tom Harrison 17:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Cospiracy Theories vs Controversy

Hello! I'm the guy who's now actively writing a "testament" in 11/9 Attacks talk page. I'm here not because I feel sympathy for you, but because I need your help. I'm new in collaborating with wikipedia and i started this activity with a big goal. The this is, I don't know how hard is to fullfill my goal and what is the right procedure for it to be achieved, so I'm asking here for advices. Please answer me in my talk page. I already asked for Informal Moderation, though I'm highly skeptical about it's power and they didn't already answerd.

P.S.- As you can see, this problem of mine wouldn't be so bad if there weren't you damn Inclusionist Speculators taking credibility of important information. I hope that you learn an ethical lesson from the shit i'm currrently into. Normal nick 22:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you need help with?--Striver 22:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what to do to bring neutrality back to the page in question? What is the right procedure I should take to solve my dispute? Is it actually possible to be solved? Don't rational arguments have any kind of power at this space? Isn't there any hierarquical superior guy who has more power than those assholes? Does what I did (the argumentation) serve any purpose?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Normal nick (talk • contribs)

Internal Spamming

Seems you have left copies of the same comment on many users' talk pages regarding a recent AfD: Please be aware of guidelines regarding internal spamming. Cheers. --mtz206 22:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Votestacking is frowned upon. We all know that you disagree with the AfD on the interviews. Great, grand. Going around digging up an army to try and overturn the established consensus jsut because you're not happy with it is disruptive. When it comes to AfD, POV should be left at the door. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 08:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Mtz206, I don't see that Striver did anything wrong or broke any rules on Misplaced Pages:Spam. He was not spamming. Besides, other users have been "digging up an army too" (]} Seabhcán 08:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That does not make them right either. With a little investigation, I've found This example of Striver recently creating a mostly bad-faith RfC because he was unhappy with another editor AfD'ing his articles, and this older but semi-relavent rfc against Striver for pushing a POV (though by assuming good faith, he's may have learned from that mistake by now).

So basically what we have here is Striver, who's disrupted AfD's in the past, and had problems and friction with other users in topics relating to Islam and extremism before, and has a definate POV that he's been shown in the past to push, is now attempting to game an AfD that was already well decided with over 30 delete votes and 18 merges/deletes (which equate to delete for all intents). Had he simply said "Hey, I noticed you voted on the original AfD. Well, I've put it up at Deletion Review, would you mind taking a look" it'd be fine. But no, he had to go and say "I view this as nothing more as the majority imposing their will on the minority, in a blatant violation of the spirit of wikipedia" which is a POV and divisive statement, as well as "It reached nothing even remotly resembling consensus, but it was deleted anyway" which is not only plain wrong, but POV too. Personally I think there'd be grounds to bring up to ArbCom based on prior history, but we all know how fruitful that generally is.⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 08:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Swatjester! you have just this minute done yourself exactly what you are accusing Striver of doing! Seabhcán 09:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

He vote stacks all the time. Anyone who has dealt with him knows this and you can fact check this by simply looking at his contribution history. He manages to get users like IrishPunkTom, Skeena, Siva1979, etc... to vote systematic keep on his articles regardless of what Misplaced Pages policy the article violates (POV forks and such) and gets them kept by no consensus. P.S. To the above comment, that isn't "internal spamming" nor is it "vote stacking" as this is not a vote but a talk page.--Jersey Devil 10:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Woo-Hoo! - Named Checked by Jersey Devil.. How long will it be before he lists all the articles I've ever edited for an AFD? Anyway, I voted on the AFD in the first place - If its being listed on the DR it makes sense he communicate with me! --Irishpunktom\ 10:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd also say that from past behavior his case would definately warrant an AbrCom. He refuses to learn from his mistakes despite always claiming to change. Most recently he created a page already with an afd tag on it violating WP:POINT see here. And in the past he broke with WP:POINT listing five "List of XXXX" articles up for deletion for the sole fact that his "Islamic Athletes" article had been put up for afd and when those tags were removed because of that reason he reverted claiming "rv vandalism". I swear, no other user is given the kind of leverage that this user is given. With regards to you, well it doesn't really matter. You break with Misplaced Pages policy by voting systematic keep for articles that are forks just because you are "friends" with Striver. So your opinion is really irrelevant to me.--Jersey Devil 10:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In my view, it looks like they are mad about me notififying the intreseted parties, since i dont share their view. Seems like the accusations of spaming have been refuted, they did want to be notified, so i dont see any reason to address this any further. --Striver 12:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Communicating with those who voted on the origial AfD is fine. The concern is whether the specific message you cut/pasted into various voters talk pages follow the internal spamming guidelines, including "Be open. Don't make cross-posts that initially appear to be individual messages" Anyway, I just wanted you to be aware of these guidelines, so worse actions don't happen in the future. --mtz206 12:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Those people had already voted on the afd. You expect me to add a disclaimer such as "note: this is spam"? --Striver 12:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

With the exception of Irishpunktom, your cut/pasted message on these talk pages was your first and only communication with each user. That is what causes alarm. Please just be aware of the guidelines moving forward. --mtz206 13:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't entirely made my mind up about stacking, though I think WP policy needs to be clearer on it. However, when notifying somebody about an AFD or a deletion review, the message should probably be more of a neutral "perhaps you'd be willing to take a look at this" than a POV-pushing "remember that travesty of justice?... well, side with me now in doing what I think is right" kind of thing. Шизомби 14:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

British Concentration Camps/RE: Talk:United Kingdom

Well there is an Origins of the Cold War page, that might be most appropriate for your sources. Robdurbar 23:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

s11 (protest)

I don't mind that they added in new stuff, that's fine, but thanks to User:Ambi in particular, they got rid of all reference to its linkage to 9/11. It is absurd to remove all linkage, considering that people were threatened to be killed over it, and so forth. I think that the only way to describe these actions by Ambi is vandalism, and her edit summaries as personal attacks.

I reverted it back to a good version, but I don't mind if it includes some of the other bits in there that they added later on. I just couldn't be bothered going through it all and weeding out all of the good bits.

Getting rid of everything is akin to calling Osama bin Laden a construction engineer who inherited billions from a Saudi family and then fought in Afghanistan, and saying nothing more about anything else. Everything else is disputed, its true, but we still need to mention it.

Anyway, if you could find some way to do that, or can be bothered, then that'd be great. I was just reading the article changes, and especially the personal attacks/vandalism by Ambi, and it just made me angry to see it, so I had to write to see about it being fixed up.

External link format

When inserting external links (for example, , , , and many others), please be sure to use proper link formatting of . --mtz206 13:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thnx

Salaam. Hope u are in the best of health. Thanx for the Barnstar! I'm gona be bit inactive for a while (have A level exams goin on). Take care, wasalaam. --Khalid 19:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamic athletics

Hello Striver, we meet again. I thought Islamic athletics is not the best name for this article and started a vote to rename it. I'd like to hear your comments on the talk page there. GregorB 21:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please

Please, just because I have an open mind, and may have voted 'on your side' on a couple of issues, please don't make the assumption that I am 'on your side' and please refrain from notifying me of any future votes. I bear you no ill will, but your wikibehaviour has gotten you a bad reputation among some of the serious editors and I have no wish to cast my lot in with yours. I value my good reputation, and will continue to support you when you are in the right, but not at all when you are not. I hope you work hard to become a pillar of our community, because with the amount of effort you spend on wikipedia, you could become one. As it looks now, you are well on your way in the other direction, probably not intentional, but there it is. That's how I see it. Good fortune to you. Pedant 23:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Understood, i will not contact you any further in any regard. --Striver 13:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Chimera

Regarding Talk:Chimera#Help: Why are you asking someone else to edit an article (to include content from Infowars.com) on your behalf? That's borderline deceptive, and "generally considered uncool." (not to mention odd since the request is in the open for anyone to see) --mtz206 03:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Deceptive? Yeah, whadever... It was a open request, since i know im on auto revert from you guys. --Striver 13:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Information Operations Roadmap

Please don't revert the edit on Information Operations Roadmap. I moved the external link to an article criticiziing the roadmap to the external links section, which is the apporpriate place for such a link. There also is little need for adding links to other sites which merely mirror the original link. Please don't revert unless you have a persuasive reason and discuss on talk page. --mtz206 15:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Muslims/Proposed Organization B

This page has come up on a list of uncategorized pages. Since it looks like it isn't meant to be a Misplaced Pages article could you please move it out of the Main space? I believe it is against Misplaced Pages policy to create subpages of articles of the main space but it is ok to have them in the User space. Thank you for your time. --JeffW 05:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's some friendly help

I was looking at your user page and noticed you use a lot of nowiki tags to display categories and templates. This can be avoided. To display a category such as Category:Islamic books you can insert the following code ]. To display the name of a template such as {{Expandsect}} just insert the following code {{tl|Expandsect}}. Hope this helps. Joelito 03:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Something you might be interested in...

Hi Striver, I thought you might be interested in this: http://www.pledgebank.com/loosechange

Great idea, will sign it. --Striver 20:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, forgot: Hi anon. --Striver 20:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongo threatened me

Make your own judgment:

Me being blocked:

Me sending a leter signed with the name "Robert Bloom":

Evidence 1: (search for the word "bloom")

Evidence 2: User_talk:Striver#Old_antics_again

Is this acceptable from a admin that previosly blocked me, violating two rules while doing so?

I'm a bit fed up with the i had to keep up with, im taking a break. --Striver 22:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not following. Where is the threat? --mtz206 22:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't threaten you...I asked you a question...and that is all I did..that block was not overturned by anyone, even though you complained in WikiEN-l. Relax.--MONGO 01:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Email

Hi, Striver. Thanks for the comments on my talk page. I appreciate that. Feel free to drop me a line whenever you wish. You can also email me from here. Do you have that same capacity and if so what's your email? Best wishes... --Northmeister 00:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Closed AFDs

You can't add recommendations to AFDs that have been closed. I found two that you had done that in and reverted - the ones for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Divorced for the third time 2 (which was open April 7-13 not two days like you claimed) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shia view of the election of Uthman which was open April 8-13, not two days. There are notices at both the top and bottom of closed AFDs indicating that you should not modify a closed discussion; if you want to make a comment you do it "on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review)." Шизомби 01:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

thank you Striver

I am really glad you have been doing the wikipdedian work you have done. I am not a Muslim but greatly appreciate the opportunity the Muslim Guild, Misplaced Pages, and so many others offer me to come and scratch the surface of understanding. I might have, at one point, slid into many of the negative ideas and over-generalisations that so many do when seeing the world through a cathode ray tube. Although I don't wish to take on a religion myself, I respect and honour you and the guild for offering me the chance to open my eyes to a perception of a diverse and complex set of worlds instead of a simplistic and shallow set of binaries. Thankyou.Danieljames626 01:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

omg! wow! Maybe i am not wasting my time here? --Striver 01:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Divorced for the third time

Please look at the first vote in that AfD, dated "April 7th". That's not two days. SushiGeek 03:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sakina binte Imam Hussain

Striver since I don't know much about how to structure an article in wikipedia, I need your help! I wrote an article on the daughter (Sakina binte Imam Hussain) of Imam Hussain AS. But I want someone to look through it and make some necessary changes and structure it nicely. Thanks You!

Striver - subj article has bee 'copyvio'd' - I think out of turn, prematurely, & if you read my comment to Salman & his revisions since then, I don't think it was warranted. Seems Salman is fairly new @ all this - if I can be of assistance, please let me know.Bridesmill 15:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

False Edit Summaries

Striver, please stop falsely adding "rv vandalism" on edit summaries as you did here. Thank you and happy editting.--Jersey Devil 21:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Other instances of questionable use of the "rv vandalism" edit summary include , , and . These appear to be edits/reverts regarding whether certain content is appropriate in the article, and not the work of a vandal. Passing off your revert as if you are cleaning the article of vandalism is, at the least, confusing, and at the worst, deceptive. Please try to be more clear in your edit summary --mtz206 21:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

afd

just wanted to let you know, that once there has been even a single delete vote on an AfD (excluding the nom), it is ineligible for Speedy Keep. You should change your vote to Strong Keep instead. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 21:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Random links - spam?

Please do not add links to talk pages without comment or paritcular relevance to a discussion. See . Such actions possibly violate guidelines on external link spamming --mtz206 16:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I really had to calm down to not curse you out. Get out of my talk page. NOW! --Striver 19:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Please try and keep a cool head, despite any comments people may make against you. Personal attacks and disruptive comments will only escalate a situation; please keep calm and action can be taken against the other parties if necessary. Your involvement in attacking back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors, and lead to general bad feeling. Please try and be civil. Thanks! (CJ) Mboverload 19:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I know. But some people make it hard. That guy just told me to NOT add info to the talk page, never mind the external links section! --Striver 19:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not telling you "NOT" to add info, just trying to ensure you do it according it WP guidlines. According to the basic rules for talk pages:

The purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the article in question. Questions, challenges, excised text (due to truly egregious confusion or bias, for example), arguments relevant to changing the text, and commentary on the main page are all fair play. Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia.

If you want to include a link to support an argument relevant to the content of the article, please provide some context/support. Just inserting a link looks suspicious. --mtz206 22:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree with the "suspicious" claim, "suspicious" of what? However, ill try to do more as you suggested. --Striver 14:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

lol

MONGO blocked me again! LOL!

For my reminder: Karl Schwarz --Striver 00:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

I don't have to put up with this and I am not going to . Your incessant disruption of this forum, repeat violations of WP:FORK, POV pushing and recitation of unencyclopedic nonsense are completely disruptive. I and others do not have to be singled out in discussion pages either. Argue the content...no more personal attacks!--MONGO 00:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Striver, I have taken MONGO's blocking actions up with him and ANI, however... MONGO is clearly correct that you launched a personal attack on him with that comment. You have repeatedly launched personal attacks on people you disagree with, which have gone from clearly over the top abusive to being more mild and annoying now. But all of these attacks are against WP policy and are degrading the WP community and the ability of everyone to work on improving articles. Whether you deserved to get blocked for this particular one or not, you absolutely need to start taking WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA seriously. It's rude and disruptive, and it's entirely within your self-control to stop doing it. All of your positive contributions are put in jeopardy by your snide attacks like this, and more than a few people will wonder if your negative contributions outweigh your positive ones. Down that path lie Arbcom and blocks. It's up to you whether you want to keep doing these and walking down that path, or stop it and behave civily from now on. Georgewilliamherbert 07:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I did have a problem with the same guy being plaintif, judge and jury, twice, the first time not even bothering to follow protocol - i did not take him seriously, just laughed at his second block and belived that he would get away with it a second time, being all three, only since im so impopular - however, at the same time, i considered that if there was any real justification for his actions, a third party would do the same. And that is what you did. Not only are you a third party that seemingly agrees with his desicion, you also have passionatly defended my works against people like him on several occasions. Therefore, i respect you and take your advice with the highest respect.

I would request you to help me in this mater, and if you percive me violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA again, then please (1) notify me, (2) give me a explanation of how i did it and (3) how i should have done it, and i will (1) retract my statment, whadever it may be, (2) rephrace it and (3) ask for an apology to the victim of my error.

As for MONGO, he is on the far opposite side of where you stand in my view. I whold have a promblem seeing him having right, even if he was right for once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Striver (talk • contribs)

I suggest you stop writing edit summaries like this one. They are not constructive. You have been told this before a couple of times. Weregerbil 14:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Um... as a person well versed in the paradigm, I must attest that Striver was spot-on when he added that see also. I also find the deletion of his talk page most upsetting. Clearly this has shown nothing is sacred in Misplaced Pages. People can prosper in a communal setting as long as they have private property they can live and invest in. By explicitly maintaining the fiat right of not only the handful of administrators but even the mob by arbitrary consensus vote, you have knocked We The People out of the illusion and clearly proclaim that in your eyes Misplaced Pages is nothing more than a grand experiment in democratic Communism, where the state owns all and bemuses the plebian mobs with the right to trample down their neighbors' houses. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 17:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Message

I really do try to avoid you at all costs, but you keep having to add your unhelpful insults to talk pages and elsewhere. It becomes tiresome when all you seem to do is provoke others...it is definitely disruptive and your comment was not only incorrect, but out of place...if you have something to say to me then say it on my talk page, not in article discussion.--MONGO 20:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

How nice, now we are also reverting talk pages... --Striver 21:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages are about talking about what is relevant to the article, not to insult other users. Misplaced Pages:Talk_page_guidelines#What talk pages may be used for Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article.--Jersey Devil 08:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, lets pretend it was just "general chatter", like talking about the weather and the latest pokemon. -striver

9/11 Truth Movement

Hey Striver come back! The 9/11 Truth Movement needs you! Kaimiddleton 20:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

Can you please stop adding edit summaries like this one "waiting for the obligatory afd...." . Edit summaries are to shortly explain edits, not for attacks.--Jersey Devil 00:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why its you that reacted on that line? --Striver 10:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report

Two quick things about your recent edits to People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report:

• Why did you remove the "citation needed" tags? We do need to ensure that the information in an article is verified.
• Why did you replace all the extraneous wiki-links that I had previously labored at removing? To avoid overlinking, one only needs to provide a wikilink for the first appearance of a term.

--mtz206 21:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Happy editing! --mtz206 00:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Muslim leaders and politicians

Hi. I was wondering about the organisation structure you had in mind for that page - on what basis are the "categorised" separated from the "uncategorised"? Guettarda 17:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Nothing more that i didnt get to sort them according to the categorised sections. A a sort of " to do" list... Hope it helps. --Striver 21:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So is the categorisation just alphabetical by century? Guettarda 04:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, its acctualy by birth year :) --Striver 11:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Battle of Khaybar, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

"The Prophet"

Striver, we can't call Muhammad "the prophet" on wikipedia. It violates WP:NPOV and the style manual for Islam-related articles. If this is allowed, it would also be allowed for non-Muslims to change it to "Muhammad the Imposter" (a common appelation in Christian Europe), or whatever else people want to call him. We have to present the agreed facts, and let readers decide for themselves.Timothy Usher 01:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Pul Joseph Watson

Need your help friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Joseph_Watson - spread the word to get KEEP's on this. Thanks, FK0071a 11:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

Hello. Please accept my apologies for a mistake I made. I misread your user page as being Alex Jones (I missed the "loving" part, somehow -- I blame Misplaced Pages for my failing eyesight). I then added a tag to Jones' page saying you were him -- it's been corrected now. So, sincere apologies for my error. The JPS 13:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Shi'a view of the meeting at Saqifah

Striver, first you moved the Saqifah article, without any discussion, and then you created a POV fork. I have put the POV fork up for deletion.

The events at Saqifah, and the whole question of the Succession to Muhammad, have already been detailed in the relevant articles. The Shi'a viewpoint is not excluded, but is presented fully. If you think that there is something missing from those articles, you should go there and try to fix them, NOT set up your own POV fork where you can hold forth without interruption or criticism.

It's only polite to tell you this. I'm sorry that it should come to this so soon. Zora 10:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the warning, thank you. --Striver 11:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

7/7 Truth Movement

Interested? - http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Wikipedians_of_the_7/7_Truth_Movement - If so please ask those on here whom else you think would be interested. Thank you and keep up the great work.

Here we go again: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/7/7_Truth_Movement I see what you mean! Is Misplaced Pages owned by Tony Blair or George Bush or his Zionist lackies?? LOL - keep up the excellent work Striver!

Typical Muslim response to everything, blame Jews or America. (Anonymous User) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.212.44.84 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 23 May 2006.

I do not know the religion of the one making the comment, but i most strongly reject the notion of "jews being behind it all" or "jews did <insert generic disaster>". Jews are my brothers in faith. --Striver 16:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In your face

The "In your face" section of your User page , while creative, seems to cross the line of "What can I not have on my user page?":

• Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Misplaced Pages
• Opinion pieces not related to Misplaced Pages or other non-encyclopedic material

You might want to consider removing it and posting it on some non-Misplaced Pages webspace instead. --mtz206 13:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Its a way of presenting my views, and that is relevant since im a wikipedia editor. If i wanted to make a point, i would ask you to go and repeat the same statmen here.--Striver 13:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Irrespective of that, the AOL logo is fair use, and (As I have found out) these types of images are not allowed on a User page. However, Coincidence theory is encyclopedic, as evidence by its own Misplaced Pages article, and thus your representations of how it manifests itself are allowed on your page... provding the images used are not Fair use.--Irishpunktom\ 13:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I see it now. I am educated, ill remove the image. --Striver 13:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Mi5 2.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Mi5 2.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. 16:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Pyramid+mason.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Pyramid+mason.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. 17:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary - vandalism

Regarding your edit summary here , a user removing information that s/he feels is from unreliable sources is not vandalism (assuming good faith). Again, please use discretion when creating edit summaries. --mtz206 20:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please stop adding false edit summaries. I ask, how many other Wikipedians are allowed to do this on a regular basis without ever as much as getting a warning from an admin for it?--Jersey Devil 22:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

JD, that was a bad faith delete. We both know that. "Reliable source" is a bogus arguement, what source is more reliable for determingin prisonplanet related content than prisonplanet itself? Delete+bogus arguement = vandalism in my view. --Striver 01:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

====Regarding reversions made on May 14 2006 (UTC) to People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report====

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 48 hours. William M. Connolley 08:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And exactly how is that a violation of the 3rr? The fourth revert was on the 12:th! --Striver 10:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The edits in question are: , , and . Please read the rules if you are in doubt William M. Connolley 19:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, great, 3rr is again 2rr for me... this sucks. --Striver 10:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The first one is maid 12:01, 13 May 2006, the last one is maid 02:58, 14 May 2006, that is 24 + 14 hours. That is not 4 revets in one day. But not that i expect that anyone really cares, this is not the first time i get blocked with bogus arguements. --Striver 09:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh my! seems like i was totaly lost! I did acctualy break it! Sorry! sorry * 1000 times! --Striver 09:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I missed one revert while counting, i thought this one was the first. It was a misstake on my part, i should have been more alert. --Striver 09:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Your behavior

Hi! It's been brought to my attention that you're being less than civil in your edits and your edit summaries. Regardless of what I think about that, I suggest you to cool down and try to understand why so many other people are reverting your contributions. Also, use talk pages for discussion, not edit summaries. Reverting an edit calling it "vandalism", "lie", or "bogus bad-faith (whatever)" is not nice when the other editor had valid reasons for it, no matter how wrong they seem to you. In short, every time you feel the need to lash out at someone, take a deep breath and don't. You were blocked today already, and it was the right thing to do. Don't complain about it. You're not getting special mistreatment. You might want to check out Misplaced Pages:Words of wisdom. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your advise, ill try to take it easier, even though some people make it hard. Regarding the block today, exactly how was it a violation of 3rr to do 4 reverts in 3 days? --Striver 17:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I was not referring to that. You don't get to "play the system" when you have a long history of edit warring. I see you've been at it again, this time adding irrelevant wikilinks (like this) to make a point. You're skating on very thin ice here, so here comes the standard warning... Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

i strongly dissagree with you claiming i am "gaming the system", i view my revert on the mosque bombing as a legitimate content dispute. I do not see who your warning is grounded in a real policy and demand that you show me what policy you are warning me. --Striver 11:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a general warning. You've sparked edit wars and continue to do so; you've violated WP:POINT; you've employed edit summaries to attack other users (e. g. calling them stupid and vandals)... 3RR is just a rule of thumb that sets a simple criterion to stop edit wars, but repeatedly reverting against consensus and without discussion is vandalism even if it doesn't meet 3RR strictly. Please understand that I have no interest in blocking you, and consider working with the rules rather than around them. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, you have in fact been blocked in the past for "gaming the system": 08:56, 27 February 2006 MONGO blocked "Striver (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Gaming 3RR with this edit user was warned) --Jersey Devil 01:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This AfD

You pasted this into the discussion:

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. Provided that all POVs are represented fairly in the new article, it is perfectly legitimate to isolate a controversial aspect as much as possible to its own article, in order to keep editing of the main article fairly harmonious.

Note my emphasis. Tell me again how Jersey Devil doesn't know what he's talking about? The article is clearly devoted to one view and not the other, as evidenced by the title. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Because we have a critique section where both Sunni and non-Muslims get to say their views of the Shi'a view. In that article, it is the "Shi'a view" that is central, not person itself. it is "Shi'a view of Hasan ibn Ali" that is centeral, not "Shi'a view of Hasan ibn Ali". All views regarding the "Shi'a view" are represented in the "new breakout article about a controversial topic". The "Shi'a view of" is a controversial topic in many fields, since they do not agree with the Sunni and non-Muslim views regarding many matters. Again, see Christian views of Jesus, Jewish view of Jesus, Jesus (prophet in Islam), Mormon view of Jesus, New Testament view on Jesus' life and who nows what more. --Striver 09:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Lambia

Im glad lambia is defending a legitimit article, while im being blocked. Jersey Devil surly did loose no time to afd a whole bunch while i was away.

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shi'a view of Ali
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sunni view of Abu Huraira
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shi'a view of Abu Huraira
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shi'a view of Muawiyah I

Lambia, take also a look at this:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shi'a view of the meeting at Saqifah

I also encourage people to read this --Striver 09:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Two quotes to remember:

• from Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view: 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.

• from Misplaced Pages:Content forking: Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Misplaced Pages procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article,

--Striver 09:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

please help me

salam.

I saw this {{islam}}

Part of a series on
Islam
Beliefs Oneness of God Angels Revealed Books Prophets Day of Resurrection Predestination
Practices Profession of Faith Prayer Almsgiving Fasting Pilgrimage
Texts Foundations Quran Sunnah (Hadith, Sirah) Tafsir (exegesis) Aqidah (creed) Qisas al-Anbiya ("Stories of the Prophets") Mathnawi (Poems) Fiqh (jurisprudence) Sharia (law)
History Timeline Jahiliyyah Muhammad Ahl al-Bayt Sahabah Rashidun Caliphate Imamate Spread of Islam Succession to Muhammad
Culture and society Academics Animals Art Association football Calendar Children Circumcision Demographics Diaspora Denominations Sunni Shia Economics Education Ethics Exorcism Feminism Festivals Finance Madrasa Moral teachings Mosque Music Mysticism Philosophy Poetry Politics Proselytizing Science Sexuality LGBTQ Slavery Concubinage Social welfare Women
Related topics Apostasy Criticism Muhammad Quran Hadith Arabic language Other religions Islamism Violence terrorism war Islamophobia Jihad Jihadism Salafi jihadism Deobandi jihadism Military laws Glossary
Islam portal
v t e

in the islamic articles. I want to make sth like it in persian wikipedia, but I can't find its structure. Please tell me the adress of {{islam}}.

I'm glad to meet you. ya Ali.--Sa.vakilian 00:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Islam

Hi there, The Islam template is used in all Islam related articles and it carries an image of the mosque, if you take a close look at the other religion templates they all carry an icon that actually symbolizes the particular religion. The question is what symbolizes Islam? As a muslim you would agree that we cannot Idolize any symbol as sacred as it would be Shirk. So the next question is what kind of icon would correctly represent Islam and Muslims? It is undoubtedly the Shahada, because without it we wouldn't be muslims. So I have suggested to change the template image from a masjid to a Masjid with the Shahada in it. In order to have the image in the template I need build some consense, could you kindly visit the talk page (Template_talk:Islam) and make your suggestion, lets have the template change so it will correctly represent Islam. (You do not have to support it if you dont like it). thanks in advance.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  10:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments brother, I really appreciate them.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  14:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Brother, your comments on the template_talk:Islam has been counted as a vote and its put under the neutral section. Many muslims agree that Shahada should be used as the logo of the template. In my opinion Islam template is the only template that doesn't contain a logo that is significantly related to the religion. The image looks like the Taj mahal. The image I have proposed relates to three different areas in Islam, .i.e

1. Shahada - Proclamation of faith
2. The masjid
3. And finaly Islamic caligraphy

If you could only reconsider your vote in favour of this we could have three different aspects of Islam represented in one image. I earnestly request you to reconsider your comments in favor of the current image. please  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  17:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, why not. Since you asked so nice :) --Striver 18:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No baiting

This is a personal attack on another editor. I'm removing it right now, but it still counts. Consider yourself warned. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

template:Islam

سلام علیکم.

We've made a template for Islam in Persian WikiPedia which is better than yours, but it isn't complete. You can use it if you want. I put it for Zereshk too and he can read Farsi.--Sa.vakilian 17:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

ما در ویکی فارسی به تازگی الگویی برای اسلام درست کرده ایم، که به نظرم از الگوی ویکی عربی و انگلیسی بهتر است. من متن آن را برای شما می گذارم. اگر خواستید ویکی انگلیسی هم استفاده کنید. البته هنوز کاملا تکمیل نشده--Sa.vakilian 17:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice to meet you

I'm a Shiite too. I find you alone in wikipedia. So I want to help you. But I'm Persian and I can't write in English well. If you put massage for me about election for deletation and sth like this I participate as soon as possible. I can send some information in persian for Zereshk, if you need to it.--Sa.vakilian 19:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, ill keep that in mind. We really need more Shi'as here on wikipedia. At the current time, im the only one active in the Shi'a pages. You will soon find out why... --Striver 22:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive?

Hi - your talk page is getting quite long. You might want to consider archiving it. Happy editing! --mtz206 11:21, 20 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)

Arbritation

Thought you might be interested to see this I think now they should be left alone though. SkeenaR 23:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

if you want help

salam

We say when somebody see a person who is alone and stranger «غریب» remind Imam Hossein. But If you send me a male and explain Shi'a situation in English WP, I try to gather my friends who at least support you in your "edit war".

I pray for you. --Sa.vakilian 05:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, although everyone IS entitled to an opinion on a given AfD, AfDs are NOT votes, so if you are a new editor or are suspected of having been asked by someone else to specifically vote against deletion (or for deletion) your vote may unfortunately be discounted. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thats great, im sure a new user appreciates that information. Keep up the good work! --Striver 08:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Disruption/3RR warning

This is not acceptable. One episode of this kind of persistent POV addition anywhere and you'll be blocked for disruption (regardless of whether it is also a violation of 3RR). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Im am adding a critique section, and reverting the removal two, not thre and not four times. What dissruption? The only dissruption i see is the removal of info and your warning. You upsett me by your warning that is not supported in any policy. --Striver 17:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You're gaming the system again. When you want to add a particular POV and other editors resist the addition, you must discuss it. A brief edit war is a conflict between several users and in principle doesn't imply vandalism. But going through articles adding controversial POV and re-adding it when reverted (or creating many articles based on a minority and controversial POV), and doing it all the time, is disruptive.

You didn't add a "critique section" to the above article. You slapped a minority POV onto an article, making it sound as if it were notable and significant, and then re-added it twice. I can protect the page if the edit war continues. That way you and everyone else will be forced to discuss the matter as it should be. If that's what you want, you can request it. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Idont know about the "is disruptive", i figure they are disruptive. But i can appreciate the "talk" part, ill try to add something to the talk page everytime i add something controversial. --Striver 17:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is that if you thank an addition might be controversial, perhaps it should be talked about first rather than simply added (even with a note on the talk page). Try to establish consensus and avoid edit wars. --mtz206 (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, although i need to admit that i suck at that. I need to improve on that. --Striver 17:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)