Misplaced Pages

I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. Before getting too in-depth, you may want to read about the Five pillars of Misplaced Pages and simplified ruleset. If you need help on how to title new articles check out the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Misplaced Pages:Help and the FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Misplaced Pages related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will be by to help you shortly.

Additional tips

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
• You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Five will get you the datestamp only.
• You may want to add yourself to the new user log.
• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
• If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
• If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.

Happy Wiki-ing. —Kf4bdy

PS: This is not a bot and you did nothing to prompt this message. This is just a friendly welcome by a fellow Wikipedian.

Ali Sina page

Well Matt57 thanks for talking to me about the Ali Sina page. Well i was talking about the information there has been skewed to simply advertise Ali Sina more. Even some facts were removed by someone there and its rather sad to see someone supporting someone so blindly, so that is what I raised there. Hope you see that too. Though I have decided not to post an edit there again, coz I am quite sick of trying to fix something, when people are happy over wrong information, let them be I say. Kind regards, (UJMi 23:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

• Matt the problem is not that Ali has been challenged or not, he has been and we all know how he debates. He has his own way and he wont come out in open debate. he goes thru emails and after that he posts them on his website in a skewed manner. And that is what I mentioned on the Criticism section too, in fact I was the one who made the Criticism section the first time, but sadly one after another all were remove to as you said rightly make it advertising space for him. I admit that after 9/11 there is this surge in anti-Islam and everything like that but I think at least an encyclopedia should be last place for such kind of reckless behavior. You can check the alteration history by me and you can see how even the website links quoted which proved that Ali uses debate to his benefit by changing the lines and its presentation was even removed. Anyway once again thank you for your contact, and I am sure you will at least agree on making Misplaced Pages a un-biased play ground of events and facts. Kind regards. (UJMi 23:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

Re: Stoning to Death in the Hadith

Do you ever see "Salat in the Hadith" ? Its always "Salat in Islam". No one asks for that to be renamed. I perfectly understand your motivations though - you dont want the word Stoning to be associated with Islam but thats what it is - Hadith are a part of Islam even if some people dont agree with them and you should accept that ... Plus, most people dont know what Hadith is so the correct title should be the original one: "Stoning to death in Islam".

I'm not quite sure how one can compare Islamic prayer with stoning, considering that the former is one of the five pillars of Islam while the latter isn't. Nevertheless, it's not about whether or not I want(ed) the word stoning to be associated with the religion, but considering that certain Islamic sects/divisions don't even take Hadiths into consideration (or some Hadiths are seen as more reliable than others), I found the title to be a little misleading. If I truly didn't want to connect stoning with (certain versions of) Islam, I would have removed the: "According to traditional interpretations of the Sharia (Islamic Law)" part of the article's first sentence, which is something that I didn't do.

Furthermore, not only are all of the examples mentioned within the article overwhelmingly from the Hadith, but the Sharia and Zina pages already deal with traditional Islamic Law's interpretive allowance/disallowance of stoning, which makes this article a little different (subject wise) when compared to the prior two. Lastly, as for those who aren't familiar with the term Hadith, the word can be linked within the article and if one types in "Stoning to Death in Islam", they get redirected to this page anyway. Most/all pages about Islamic religious and legal terms on wikipedia, are actually titled through their Arabic names. Silver crescent 02:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright fine then. I see its going to be impossible to argue and win here, although I could but its not worth my time. I'm ok with your title as well. Thanks.--Matt57 23:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

--- Shortcuts: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Userboxes

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Just wanted to drop you a note to say thank you for adding the court case details to the Timeline. Cheers. (→Netscott) 22:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

response to your message

Sorry for not responding. I really don't have an opinion on . It is good because it groups the quranic verses together, but it is bad, because it is one-sided. It isn't like a forum on Islam. That, I would support.--Sefringle 07:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

About the category for deletion thing

You left a message on my talk page about the Category:Former Muslims deletion debate, saying that it "must be resolved soon and the Deletion notice must be taken out". You also asked on the category talk page why the category was being considered for deletion.

1. When someone thinks something on Misplaced Pages should be deleted, they can nominate it for deletion. Then there is a discussion lasting 7 days. Then an administrator looks at the discussion and decides whether or not there is consensus to delete it. If there is no consensus to delete, it is kept. Right now it seems that consensus is to keep that category. Tomorrow is the 7th day (tecnically today is the 7th day but I stuck the discussion in the wrong place so it's tomorrow instead of today). Therefore tomorrow an administrator will close the debate and remove the tag from the category page. I cannot close it because I am not an administrator. It will happen tomorrow all on its own.
2. As for why it's being considered for deletion; did you read the message at the top of the discussion? Someone (not me) came by and thought it could be dangerous and tried to delete it without going through the proper channels. I was just trying to help that person out by nominating it the proper way. I was hoping they would come back and participate in the discussion and better explain their concerns about the category, but they didn't. So as it stands it is being discussed because somone expressed some vague concerns about terrorism but didn't know what to do about it and obviously wasn't concerned enough to follow through by returning to see if anything had been done.

Hope that answered your questions. See you around. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why an admin hasn't closed it yet... I was wondering that myself earlier today. Adimns have closed other discussions from that same day, but that one and several others haven't been closed yet. I don't know why. Maybe the admins are busy with other things. I don't know. It seems like all the ones from that day that have been closed were either delete or re-name and the ones where the consensus seems to be "keep" seem to be the ones that haven't been closed yet. Maybe the admins aren't in as much of a rush to close those. Who knows. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 17:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You said, "You didnt have to pay importance to an anonymous person." Aren't we all anonymous? We are all either IP addresses or psudonymous screen names here. The person (User:66.126.82.49 (see their contributions here)) was someone contributing from an IP address who was fairly new and didn't understand how things worked and saw a page that they felt was threatening and scary. My hope was that they could see the process of how things work, express their fears, have their fears calmed, and go away happy. Meanwhile the Misplaced Pages community would be aware of something that appears threatening to outsiders. An anonymous person is still a person, and people are important. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've asked on WP:VPA if non-admins can close deletion debates that are to be kept, and if not why. It was my understanding that one had to be an admin. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are you getting so upset about this? The category isn't going to be deleted, it's not a big deal. The IP's other contributions aren't vandalism, and we are supposed to assume good faith. Not all IPs are vandals, just like not all new users are vandals. In fact, most of Misplaced Pages's content comes from IPs. I don't understand why you're so worked up. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

YES, its a big deal because someone (you) decided to noninate a category for deletion based on Anonymous Vandal edits of a user, who deleted text in the category page and threatened the people listed in the category. Thats the upsetting part. Now, work hard to get the category out of Deletion and dont listen to Vandals next time. Learn to see whats vandalism and when its not. The proper thing was for you to REVERT the vandalism. Instead you went along with the Vandal and decided to NOMINATE the category for Deletion. Amazing. --Matt57 18:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Kbdank71 has closed the debate. It's over, done, we don't need to think about it any more. As for me opening the debate to begin with... Now, I'm sorry, but a lot of people think that deleting content on Misplaced Pages works the same way that adding content does; you push edit, then delete or backspace. New users don't know how to delete something that they feel shouldn't be there. Page blanking is usually, but not always vandalism. This essay, for example says, "Blanking is one of the most common forms of vandalism - however, it is also one of the actions most commonly misdiagnosed as vandalism, and editors should be careful that they do not accuse editors of it unjustly." (emphasis mine). In this case, I honestly do not think that that was vandalism. Another quote from the same essay describes exactly the type of situation I think that was, "Generally, editors may not replace articles with blank text. Even if the entire page is inappropriate, the deletion policy must be followed. New users, however, are unlikely to know this." I do not see how the anon who blanked it "threatened the people listed in the category". It seemed to me that the person percieved a threat to the people in the category and were trying to respond to that threat by eliminating it. They did not threaten to do anything to the people in the category. They simply expressed a view that the category was inappropriate, a view that I feel they had every right to and a view that I feel deserved its airing. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, ok. --Matt57 21:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Lists

I've replied to your comments on my talk page. Shimeru 20:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Walid Shoebat.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Walid Shoebat.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 13:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalising!? and Me?

Dude, I have given a reason in the discussion page, read that and then point fingers.Akeeq 00:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And if you had trouble reading that, let me explain; which biography points out views of people at wiki done in the manner at Zakir Naik? None I believe. Which Biography is supposed to have biased viewpoints? NONE. Which biography is supposed to quote out of context and give wrong references, NONE. So if these points are found somewhere, I will surely oppose it. And if you didn't get it lemme say it clearly, All of this was and is being done at Zakir Naik's article, and I will/am opposing it.Akeeq 01:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Zakir Naik

Hi Matt,

There has been a lot of activity on the above mentioned page, and since you've been regularly involved I thought you could help me out. user:88.108.255.94 has made a number of changes- some OK, some not- and I'm finding it tricky to get rid of the weasly edits while maintaining the valid ones. So please just look over what I (will) do, just in case I mess up somewhere. Thanks --khello 04:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: 213.42.21.79

I've taken a look at it -- it's registered to an ISP in the United Arab Emirates, looks like, and is either a dynamic IP address or is shared among multiple users, not all of whom appear to be vandals. Future problems can lead to longer or more severe blocks, certainly, but at this time it appears that doing so could cause unnecessary collateral damage. Thanks for the thought, though. :) Luna Santin 01:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Dr, Zakir Naik and Ali sina

hi matt it seems to me that u r one sided either u r ali sina urself of u r a islamophobe(anti -islam). whats ur problem mate, i have made some changes in zakir naik and ali sina and u always seems to come and delete it why are u one sided. i have also given the video link which proves that please go and watch it if u want to critizise Dr naik do it and create a page on that name but zakir naiks page is supposed to be showing his biography not just criticism, and u seems to be on Ali sina payroll u have very nice things for him and dont like his critism.

i wana talk to u on this issues if u r open minded and want a discussion then lets do it otherwise ill complain all this to wikipedia admins.

plz reply me my wikipedia id is mak82hyd

HI matt i have just added some info to the page and its just informative and harmless hope u all will agree, given some references feel free to edit if u dont find it proper but please dont just delete my edits if u feel something is wrong modify it. thanks. --Mak82hyd 16:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

why dont u reply matt u does not seems to hear me looks like u r not impartial. i did not delete anything just added some critism Mak82hyd 05:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

OH I SEE i just did not realised ok thanks for pointing out can i just add some criticism?

i accept my mistake can we chat on yahoo or hotmail do u mind? thanks Mak82hyd 05:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ali sina critism

I want to add what yamin zakaria says about ali sina with references and yamin point of view of debate as well. Mak82hyd 06:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Matt, I totally agree with u but if u r honest and open minded just read zakir naik and ali sina biographies, u know what i am talking about, why is this hypocrisy and hatred towards islam. why cant be both zakir naik and ali sina biographies be impartial and anti islamic. Mak82hyd 06:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for ur suggestions matt, i respect ur views, i will work on it but right now i am busy writing dissertation. but as soon as i finish i shall do it and i will be more regular then i am now Mak82hyd 06:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks matt, i will add yamin data later. its 6.42 am in uk now whole night has passed, I probably better go to bed now. cheers Mak82hyd 06:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Death of Anwar Shaikh

There is a reference which claims that he died on 25 November 2006 in Wales, GB:

http://www.haindavakeralam.org/PageModule.aspx?PageID=2426&SKIN=W

Though it is a Hindu website it is unlikely that such a trivial thing will actually be a propaganda, as they only claim his death not murder by Islamofascists or any such thing.

Since the person in question is socially of a low profile, it is unlikely that secular reports of his death will be available in just two days.

Sorry I have registered recently on wiki. Though I have gone through the relevant policies it is possible that I may err unknowingly. Thanks Maquahuitl 13:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ali sina reply

matt , u said that ali sina page is his page and it will be about him so is zakir naik page does not belong to him why is all critism and anti naik thing there no one like his achievements written there pleae reply to questions --Mak82hyd 18:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Re Ali Sina: Not a ballot?

Hi Matt. I just put the tag to slow down the anon multiple voting (sockpuppeting) and users' first edits. If you don't see its necesity than that's fine w/ me. Cheers -- Szvest Ω 17:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for violation of WP:3RR at Ali Sina. Almost all of your recent edits consist of either edit warring or calling people vandals. I think you need to cool off for a bit and use dispute resolution instead, once the block expires. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 03:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought the 3RR didnt apply if I was reverting anonymous IP edits. Because technically they can get another IP and keep reverting stuff while I can do it only 3 times. I'll try to get that article semi-protected.--Matt57 13:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Re Dealing with Vandals

Hi Matt. My modest experience in Misplaced Pages tells me that the issue is not that simple as it appears. It is true that removing content w/o discussion is considered vandalism but there's always a context covering that. In the case of Ali Sina, the removal of the content is part of:

• Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons - It is important to read this official policy. It is very hard to apply that to our case as there is a dispute whether Ali is a real person or not. But at least we can assume he is.

• Bullying or Stubbornness

Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable — you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism.

I would suggest you assume good faith and that you invite the IP to discuss his reverts on the talk page. If the user doesn't want to do so than we can drop the assumption of good faith and start considering that as pure vandalism.

Last important thing. Personally, i believe in the freedom of editing in wikipedia though i am really against IP editing. Many editors and admins have been debating this very hard before at the village pump but still there is no serious concensus on that. YOu could prepare a draft or a proposal and discuss it at the Misplaced Pages:village pump (proposals). I'd love to participate on that. -- Szvest Ω 18:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Re Criticism of the Qur'an. Hopefully, admin Tom harrison whom i trust too much protected the article. I hope involved parties discuss the issues at the talk page. The point can be synthetized as per admin Grenavitar commented earlier:

'anti-Muslim' leaning editors want to point out these 'bad' things of the past and essentialize them as a constant of Islamic history. Our 'Muslim' leaning editors want to lessen or rationalize these views. Neither way works and it is very difficult to present this in a neutral light. We aren't a scholarly paper that can have a thesis and we aren't a paper encyclopedia which only covers the basics (which makes it much easier).

I've edited islam-related articles before but w/ the persistent edit warring between the two sides described above i decided to slow down my contributions re to those articles. I've been accused of being anti-semitic asshole and a member of the anti-Zionist cabal by wikipediareview.com gurus, a wikifascist by Daniel Brandt. However, i am still optimistic that wikipedia would still fight those kind of attitudes as i commented once at pbs.org/mediashift.

Vandalism is easy to spot and as i said earlier above, if the IP doesn't want to discuss than i'll block him personally. The problem is not about that kind of vandalism but the attitude of a few wikipedians. I can't just block those established users but there's a somehow long process that admins including myself can follow (i.e Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration, etc.). Feel free to contact me anytime you need help. Cheers -- Szvest Ω 15:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Answering-Islam.org

What's been going on with that article, do you know? Answer on my talk, please. Arrow740 03:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)