User talk:Striver: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:36, 21 July 2006 editZereshk (talk \| contribs)22,595 edits →Lebanon ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:07, 21 July 2006 edit undoZereshk (talk \| contribs)22,595 edits →Urgent Next edit →
Line 927:		Line 927:

	Please vote . Thanks--] 00:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)		Please vote . Thanks--] 00:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

			btw, I found two more Shia users while browsing around: They are ] and ]. If they have enough guts to profess their belief in this time and age, then perhaps they might be of use in potentially editing some articles.

			Just for your information :) --] 01:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:07, 21 July 2006

Islamic Barnstar Award

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

An award

question to readers

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

Wiki stalking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, look again:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MSASFU

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

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

Message?

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

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

please tell me your idia

salam

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

Sistani

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

No personal attacks

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

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

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

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

Moves

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

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

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

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

God vs. savior

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

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

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

Sahih Bukhari

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Muslim Guild?

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

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

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

POV pusher

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

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

License tagging for Image:AmericaDeceived.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:AmericaDeceived.gif. Misplaced Pages gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 01:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Striver

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

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

Internal spamming

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

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

I promise I kid you not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Striver,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lol

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

Hadith of Persians and knowledge

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

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

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

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

Pointless unproductive stub creation

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

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

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

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

Striver, the basic issue remains, why didn't you keep the promise you made at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil, when you wrote "Ill try to follow that User:Striver 03:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)" in response to Georgewilliamherbert's remarks, which I quote in part?? --

"I urge that: Striver slow down on stub creation; place more fully formed articles into main namespace, and utilize sandboxes more when working on potential articles, so that they are properly formed when they reach main namespace."

It's nice if other people bolstered up S-L-M and H-M-D to make them semi-respectable, but that's the "relying on the kindness of strangers" method, and doesn't change the fact that the R-H-M article as you have left it is a complete mess of a ministub, which is utterly and completely inadequate in many ways (and adding a few more redlinks of dictionary words derived from ر ح م ain't gonna change that). I've followed around behind you cleaning up and expanding the inadequate ministubs that you've created many times in the past, but I'm simply not going to do so in this case. You may be a very pious Shi`i Muslim believer, but you are not a linguist in any sense, and it would make things easier for other people if you would recognize your limitations in this area. AnonMoos 00:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Sahaba's ancestors

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

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

Image Tagging for Image:Real.jpg

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

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

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

Image Tagging for Image:Arthur anime2.JPG

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

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

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

Page advertisement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abraham/Ibrahim

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

Your Name

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

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

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

Yazid I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islam and criticism

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

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

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

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

Mutaween

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

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

ANI

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was wondering why you aint been replying! It happened again

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification

THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY.

YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE.

Delivery to the following recipient has been delayed: x**************@hotmail.se--Irishpunktom\ 19:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Its been Sent! --Irishpunktom\ 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahmed

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

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

from Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)

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

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

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

Category marked for deletion

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 10:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

IAO-logo.png

The Information Awareness Office logo is probably not in the public domain, so it is currently included in Misplaced Pages as a fair use logo. According to Misplaced Pages policy, it may therefore not be used on user pages. I've found you another free eye-and-pyramid image from the Commons instead.

I also had to unlink the scroogle.org link, since it's been added to the Spam blacklist which means the software wouldn't let me save the page with the link in it. I've left URL still there, it's just not a clickable link any more. (If you wish to dispute the blacklisting, please take it up with the Meta admins — I'm not one of them. For what it's worth, the stated reason for blacklisting seems to be that "These sites are redirecting requests from Wikimedia sites to a third-party site.") —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Userpage

Yes, I was referring to that picture from Abu Ghraib. User:FairNBalanced has already got into a lot of trouble for similar things. I think it can only cause problems between editors.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Awwam ibn Khuwaylid

I am going to {{prod}} this article becuase as I see it, it fails to assert the importance of the subject (CSD A1). I thought I would be kind and give you a heads up:) Eagle talk 06:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I was going to {{db-bio}}, but I did not because of your recent edit to the page. Eagle talk 06:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Works of Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi

Taking you at your word "I would appreciate if they could just ask me to expand it" from the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Meaning of the Qur'an (tafsir), there are a number of articles linked from this page which would benefit from expansion. I think you created all, or most, of them. I have no way of knowing that the books themselves are notable, but I assume they are from the subject matter in the titles. It's the articles that could do with expansion. And I'm hoping you will be able to give them at least the minimum expansion they need to assert notability. Fiddle Faddle 21:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the trust. Here are the relevant articles:

The Meaning of the Qur'an — created by me, seems like it will be keept after my humble expansion
Islamic Way of Life — created by me
Khutabat: Fundamentals of Islam — created by me
Caliphs and Kings — created by me

The rest:

are not created by me, rather by User:Falcon1234.

As for the ones i created, ill take a look at them now. --Striver 21:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As I am sure you feel strongly about those that are also in need of expansion, but created by User:Falcon1234, and since I do not have any expertise at all in Islam, perhaps you and Falcon1234 would collaborate in expanding the others where necessary?

I'm sure you'll understand that my Prodding them and the AfD on the other article is purely an attempt to ensure that the articles become worthy of their subjects (assuming the subjects themselves are notable)

As I am sure you know, you are perfectly entitled to remove the Prod yourself. It says so in the prod tag. Though I am sure you will expand them before doing this.

I wish you good fortune with the AfD. It isn't a ballot, and that article may still fail. Any expansion and assertion of notability that you can do on it in addition to that which you have done already will strengthen the case against deletion. As I've said on the discussion page there, it isn't enough yet for me, but others disagree. That is good, because it provokes thought and discussion and consensus.

Fiddle Faddle 22:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I just somewhat expanded Caliphs and Kings recently, and i continue to look on the others. I dont have much invested intrest on his other books, but for the wiki sake, ill take and expand them with some obvious things such as who the auothour is and stuff. but im not going to de-prod the articles i did not creat, since, just as i said, i dont have much intrest in them. Thanks for your cooperation!--Striver 22:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Al-islam.org

Striver, was jsut finishing wikifying al-islam.org; tried to wl the journals Al-Serat, Al-Tawheed, and Al-Thaqalayn as well as al-Ghadir trad. - none of them are on WP, obviously best done by someone with language ability & subject knowledge - could you steer those the right way?Bridesmill 02:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

sure :) --Striver 06:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I found some info on Al-Sirat, and i linked to it, but it was external linking and i doupt i could make a good stub out of it. But i created good red-links for it. I did not have any luck tracking the other journals, not in their internal search and not in goolge by large. So i just red-linked them as well. I hope it was of some help. Peace :) --Striver 07:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

For me to remember

{{Bukhari-usc|5|58|236}} {{Muslim-usc|8|3310}} Confirmation bias

They said we will make you wish to die and it will not happen They stripped me naked. One of them told me he would rape me. He drew a picture of a woman to my back and makes me stand in shameful position holding my buttocks.
— Ameen Saeed Al-Sheik, detainee No. 151362,

FUTON bias

“

blbaablbalbalba.

”

http://www.thememoryhole.org/tenet-911.htm

hgjgddfgdg

sfdfgdfg

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/27261

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain.

Cosmic Era Mobile Units

9-11 talk on YouTube

(الله)

The award

Thank You Striver for giving me the Zulfiqar Award. I really appreciate it because it always feels good when someone appreciates your work and effort. Salman

Merge

Yo striver u gotta teach me how to merge the articles man. And yes that article (Umm-e-Salama) was long because I paraphrased the article from another website. But that is not considered as a copyright violation. Thank You Salman

Economic System of Islam (book)

Thank you for the acknowledgement of good faith. As I am sure you see I am simply following up the process I started with a Prod. I'm content that the prod was removed from this and its colleague articles, and am equally content that discussion is now taking place on AfD. My deep hope is that knowledgeable editors will pick this challenge up and improve the articles, perhaps even beyond stub status. I have nothing to use to judge the topics of the articles. For me (forgive me) they may or may not be notable topics. I simply argue that the articles about the books are not notable as articles. As you know I am more than happy to change my vote when I see things change. Fiddle Faddle 10:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the work you are doing on these articles. I have already withdrawn the two that you have worked so far on and placed a comment in the AfD discussion to seek to ensure that the other articles are only deleted if they have not had similar attention. I will not be online much longer today, so I am sure the closing admin will take a balanced view after your work and the extra comment. Fiddle Faddle 16:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :)--Striver 16:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A pleasure. My objective is that wikipedia is always becoming better. Individual articles simply need to be worth having :) Fiddle Faddle 17:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:ALI IBN RABBAN AL-TABARI.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ALI IBN RABBAN AL-TABARI.jpg. 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:

Image Tagging for Image:Tony Olsson.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 21:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Abu Sufyan ibn Harb article

I am reverting this back to an earlier version because someone along the line has so completely mucked this up by combining Abu Sufyan ibn Harb & Abu Sufyan ibn al-Harith. What I need you to do is reference the family relations you've added to the article. The only one I could source is his daughter Ramlah bint Abu Sufyan.--Isotope23 19:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with you adding the geneology back, but if you can... please try and source it. It's not that I'm any way worried about this being controversial... it's just a good idea to mention sources, even if it is just listing a book that has this information.

Time permitting I'm going to be going through other Islamic articles over the next several weeks and sourcing/cleaning them up as appropriate. If it's cool I might run some things by you because I don't necessarily consider myself a subject expert on Islam.--Isotope23 22:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, lets cooperat to enhance wikipedia. Ill do what i can, but i hope you excuse me if i come short on knowledge, references or time. Peace! --Striver 22:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sahaba's ancestors

Hey, I wasn't near a computer for the last day or so... umm, I'm not sure how to go with that one... or if I will comment... because... I think there could be a good systematic way to deal with it. That title is not very good... and I don't think we want redundany family trees all over the place. What you did with Family tree of Muhammad looks like... assuming it's accurate and all... I have no idea what the genealogy is... I think we should work a little to source it... because, you do get scholars who don't believe the traditions... but, that's not a pressing issue. Granted, making too unified a list will make it an incredibly windy and convoluted document.--actually I've made up my mind... see the page. gren グレン 20:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.... that was a lot of dots.... you mean that i should source it better? Any other suggestion on how to improve Family tree of Muhammad ?--Striver 21:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

a mistake

salam

I'm a Shiite and I guess there is a big mistake in Fatima Zahra. There is written "According to Shi'a Muslims, Fatima Zahra binte Mohammed was Islamic Prophet Muhammad's only daughter" . I looked for a reference for it, but I can't find anything in Persian document. Please correct it.--Sa.vakilian 10:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

excuse me but I can't find the text you refer to it.--Sa.vakilian 13:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I try to find more evidence. but I can't find a reliable document.--Sa.vakilian 13:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Bro, are you saying that Tijani is not a reliable source? --Striver 16:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

no. If he said this, then I should study more. I'll ask somebody who is expert in hadis and history. Do you know Rasool Jafarian.--Sa.vakilian 10:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert

Striver, I reverted your change to Abu Sufyan ibn Harb because it looks like you took the article back to the version that attributes information and quotes about Abu Sufyan ibn al-Harith to Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, which is what I'm trying to clean up here. Probably a better thing to do would be to take the version I have right now and add to it with WP:V information rather that revert back to earlier versions that contain factual inaccuracies.--Isotope23 14:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Banu (arabic)

Thanks for letting me know. I changed my vote at the AfD. —Mets501 (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that really made me happy :D --Striver 18:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

To be with the truthful (book)

If you want it back, I'd recommend simply recreating it. The version I speedied consisted of only one sentence. --InShaneee 18:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Alright, just one more thing. You do have a good amount more content to add to it then, right? --InShaneee 18:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Done! :) --InShaneee 18:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd fix the 'views' sections to be a little more neutral. The way they're written, it sounds like EVERYONE of that faith has those beliefs about the book, which is a very general statement. Otherwise, looking good! --InShaneee 22:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Binte VS Bint

Salam My brother Striver, what’s happening dawg? Well first of all binte means daughter of (just like ibn mean son of). What I started noticing in wikipedia is that most of the Islamic articles have bint instead of binte after the names of respected female individuals in the history of Islam. Bint has a spelling mistake since it leaves out the e from binte. That’s why whenever I see bint or bin in an article I always replace them with binte and ibn (which is the right form of saying son of and daughter of in Islam). Thank You Salman

No problem Striver, any time man. Bro here is a link to an Islamic website where you can ask questions regarding Islam and respected individuals in the history of Islam. The link is, Al-Khoei.org, it is going to take you straight to the question box. They will get back to you within a week. Sometimes even parents get confused and then only way to find out the truth is by asking the experts. Don’t hesitate to use the link, later man. Thank You Salman

Ihram

Hey, you moved Ihram article to Ahram. Why? --Lanov 22:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry brother, but I'm a native speaker of Arabic and I know it is ihram or ehram. It can't be ahram at all. --Lanov 00:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cave of Thawr.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cave of Thawr.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 19:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

It falls under two speedy deletion criteria, articles with little to no content and, more importantly, biographys of people with no claim to notability. Simply being related to notable people does not mean that the person themself is notable. --InShaneee 19:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I fully support speedying in this case per InShaneee's reasoning. In addition, the proper English transliteration is "bint", not "binte". "Binte" is the Persian variant, I suppose. Pecher

If you only say "daghter", then its "bint". If you say "Daghter OF", its "binte". So its "random bintE random". --Striver 20:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, calm down. You can leave the comment below there if you really like, but it was left by a vandal who's been using an open IP address to stalk me today. He has been spamming dozens of pages with the below comment. --InShaneee 20:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Bro, no problem, just undelete the article. --Striver 20:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've said, being related to someone notable does not make the person notable in and of themselves. If you wish to contest my decision, you may do so on WP:DRV. --InShaneee 20:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What about Arabic Misplaced Pages or one of the other language Wikipedias? Netscott 20:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand? --Striver 20:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd think there might be an article about her on Arabic wikipedia, no? Netscott 21:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, i see. Unfortunatly, i can not read Arabic :( Thanks for the advice. --Striver 21:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well find out her name in Arabic script if you can't find much about her in English... you'll probably find more stuff about her in Arabic and you'll be able to strengthen the the DRV. Netscott 21:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ask some of the folks you know who are able to search for info in Arabic to check Arabic Misplaced Pages. If there's an article there you'll have a very good case. Netscott 21:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ill ask User:Mustafaa --Striver 21:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Another idea, just develop the article about her to maturity in your userspace and then if it is substantially different from what was originally up... make a new article about her. Netscott 21:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I admitt that i dont have a whole lot to add to the article, but that should not be a reason to delete it. That the whole idea of stubs, to have small articles that can be expnaded with ease, if somebody happens to know some trivial info about the person. Its much more inviting to expand on a stub than to creat a new article. Why this hurry to delete articles? --Striver 21:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand Striver but it's common that articles are speedied like that. Honestly if she's that notable you should be able to develop a decent article in your userspace and transfer it over when it's mature. Strengthen your DRV case a bit and I'll support the article's undeletion. Netscott 22:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand your position, and i have good faith towards you. Unfortunaly, i dont think i can add much more. As i said, my experience in this field is that one needs to presereve every bit of info, you never know when somebody comes around and adds something. Im sure we both agree on notability, our conflict is regarding material, and my stance is that its better to be inclusice in this regards. Remeber, we are talking about the wife of a notable jewish chieftain that lived for 1400 years ago. Is it really that strange if nobody has bothered to upload information on her? Is it really reasonable to assume non-notability? I guess we are not going any farther on this issue. Anyhow, thanks for trying to help, and peace. --Striver 22:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's see what User:Mustafaa comes up with... I'm going to search a bit... I'll probably vote undelete to AfD. Netscott 22:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Striver 22:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Striver, I hadn't realized how new the Huyayy ibn Akhtab article was. In this light my argument wasn't very strong about his wife not being there. Because this is true I've voted for undelete. Cheers. Netscott 01:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thank you :D --Striver 01:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, good luck. :-) Netscott 02:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Striver, you might cite this diff to strengthen your case. Netscott 00:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tipp!--Striver 00:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, at this point I'd be very suprised if this article wasn't undeleted. Netscott 00:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd advise that you change the wording of your last comment to say. Even these comments by T.U. support my contention that this article merits undeletion. Netscott 01:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Lol, thanks :P --Striver 01:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Duh, silly, spell out his name like so : User:Striver only his name. Netscott 01:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes boss! i hear and i obey! --Striver 01:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Much better, now your article is sure to be undeleted. :-)))) Netscott 01:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

lol :D --Striver 01:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

he likes deleting

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Log/delete?page=Bad_Eisenkappel

Disputes with User:Pecher?

There seems to be a number of folks in such a class of individuals. Even Editorius (Khaybar) is in that group. Netscott 20:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I rather keep quite than saying to much.... --Striver 20:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't blame you. Netscott 20:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Abu-Talib VS Abu Talib

How are you Striver? Let me start off by telling you that Abu Talib’s real name was Imran. I don’t think that westerners are going to have any kind of misunderstanding between Abu-Talib and Abu Talib. I Live in NYC and I know that Americans know what Abu means (Abu means father of) since most of the terrorists have Abu in front of their names (for example, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). I think we should try our best to introduce the right form of roman Arabic to the westerners. So I think that Abu Talib should be better since it is the right way if saying father if Talib, this way we are not going to mess-up the right way of stating the name and also we are going to help some of the westerners realize the different between Abu, Ibn, Bin, Bint, and Binte. Thank You Salman

See my man Striver, the thing is, I started editing on wikipedia.org because there were some things said from the Shi’a POV that were not accurate or there were some important information they was left out. For example, you can go to Bibi Fatima Zahra (AS) binte Hazrat Muhammad SAW’s page and read what I have stated in the Shi’a section of that page. Most people believe that Imam Ali (AS) didn’t come out of the house when Umar was changeling him because Imam Ali (AS) was scared (which is not true, no one dares to openly challenged my Shi’as’ Mola, like that). After reading that section you will understand that how important it is to tell the truth straight up (you will not confuse anyone and because of that you will not mislead anyone). I think most westerners do know what ibn is and if they don’t understand what ibn is then from now on we will add an internal link to ibn as well as binte. So if a reader doesn’t understand what ibn or binte is then they can go to the article written on ibn and binte. I don’t think we should play around with the names like Abd al Mutalib ibn Abd al Uzzah by turing the name into Abd-al-Mutalib ibn Abd-al-Uzzah (with a totally different way of pronunciation) just for the sake of the readers. Our main job should be to tell the truth from the Shi’a POV and sources in a neutral way. Thank You Salman

Agree or Disagree

Sorry Man I don’t have enough time to spend on debating. I just like to edit articles non wikipedia on Islam. You know try to make them as better and perfect as possible. I mean we don’t have to agree on everything (that’s how human nature is). You do what you think is right and I am going to do what I think is right. You can also use that question link I gave you that can become handy (I think this is the best time to use it). Later Bro, Thank You Salman

Ma salam. --Striver 22:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Amin Ahsan Islahi

The history doesn't show you having any edits on it (unless you did it as anon) so, I don't think so. It was deleted as a copyvio so another admin deleted it and I did again after it was recreated. I was thinking of doing a bit of research (I have a Muntasir Mir book on Islahi) and starting the article again. gren グレン 06:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Just wanted to be sure that none of my "pets" (as somebody put it) is "killed" as a orphan :P --Striver 11:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

bint vs. binte

Hi. This issue needs to be settled at some point and Salman's moving things without discussion isn't helping. Britannica only uses bint. JSTOR has many more articles using bint than it does for binte. We need to examine what scholarly sources do and not just move these on whims without serious encyclopedia wide discussion. gren グレン 07:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi bro. I was also anoyed at the moves in the start, but after having talked to my father, i now inclined to vote for moving all "x bint y" to "x bintE y". As i explained earlier, i was informed that "daughter = bint", but "Daughter OF = bintE". So if you ask a Arab how to say "Daughter", he will anser "bint", but he will say "Fatimah bintE Muhammad". As for how some other dictionay transliterates, i care very little. peace!--Striver 11:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thaqif

Striver; of course the whole incident is told according to legendary accounts. I put the "according to legend" clarifier in there for a few reasons, but chief being among them:

1) Despite the traditional account, it's a leap of faith to believe he didn't die immediately in the first place. I mean, he was shot SEVERAL times.
2) Such a verbose final testament is likewise incredible in that context, especially as he was supposedly shot in the chest and therefore probably wouldn't have even been able to speak.
3) The respectful "Peace be upon him" is an invention of later times, and likely would not have been said in the time that Muhammed lived. However, this was almost always added whenever characters mentioned the prophet.

Muslim histiographical sources about the early spread of Islam, especially in Muhammed's time, are bound to be slanted to some extent, especially since much of it highlighted the more incredible accounts in order to glorify martyrs for the faith and serve in converting remaining non-Muslims. That being said, many of the accounts do reflect a certainly degree of overall historical integrity and should be treated as primary source materials, especially since often we have very little from outside the Muslim world to corraborate them. Speaking of which, do you think you could also source the article and provide citations, since you contibuted most of the material to the article? It would be helpful. Kaelus 18:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You raise valid arguements, truly, you do. Don't take this as i am dissing you, BUT: whe are not to make original research, branding one part of the accound as credible, while ourselvs deciding to disregard some other part. I mean, no matter how unlikly in your eye, is it impossible? I think the best solution is to just put a "according to Muslim sources" before the quote, i can live with that rather than "legend". As for sourcins, ill fix it. Thanks for your conserns, lets keep improving wikipedia. Peace! --Striver 18:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't intend to disregard any of the story, my friend. But I did want a qualifier so that readers would be more familiar with the sources of a more obscured and less-taught area of Muslim history. This is a major problem on many articles, but particularly so on articles related to classical history and religion. I think that your suggestion, coupled with citations, would be more than adequate. I also have to congradulate you on working so diligently on subjects related to Pre-Islamic tribes and such; such articles still obviously need lots of work and inclusion of both traditional and archaeological/scientific sources, but that you've contributed to much as you have to form a basis for yourself and other editors to expand as such is commendable, seriously. Thank you. Kaelus 07:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ouch

I just caught notice of your comments here. Those are pretty harsh comments. I wonder if you still feel that way? :-) Netscott 19:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... to avoid missunderstandings, i will not answer, and instead make a statment: There are people on wikipedia that are more intrested "blackwashing" islam then acctually building a npov and accurrate encyclopedia. I dont even know if they are aware of their extrem baise, it would'nt surprise me if they truly belived they are neutral. Anyhow, those people have a lot of time on their hand, are stuborn and dont care much for finding middle grounds. They "spend" their time on some key article whom they more or less wp:own. Most Muslim editors, including me, dont even bother going to those articles. Those who do bother, quite the entire wikiproject in desperation (BrandonYusufToporov), or get frustrated at being undernumbered to the point of doing 3rr violations till they get ArbConed (IrishPunktom). I dont even bother going to the front line, they can f-ing keep it. They can enjoy their hate, hope they benefit from it. --Striver 23:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome (re: Tawhid)

I also caught notice of comments of yours... more positive ones... so... thanks for the compliments! 8-) — Rickyrab | Talk 22:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-Muslim view of Ali

Striver, this article is deeply unencyclopedic. The only question should be whether the opinions are from reliable and/or notable sources. If so, they belong in the main article. If not, they shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages.Timothy Usher 04:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It survived two afd's. Bro, you forget that some times, there are conflicting view. For example, do you belive Jesus had a virgin birth? --Striver 04:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course I don't. One can only wonder as to the circumstances which inspired this story.

Conflicting views should be set side-by-side, topic by topic, not corralled into sections.

This article makes it clear there isn't a "non-Muslim view" of Ali anyhow. You'd probably be surprised to hear my view (which is neither reliable nor notable).Timothy Usher 05:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, im intrested in hearing new views. Regarding the article, "non-Muslim" is another way of sayin "Alternativ views" in a topic that has been dominated by Muslims historians and academics for over a 1400 years, until non-Muslims started paying intrest for like... 100-200 years ago. The non-Muslim views are not uniform in most cases, not in the way that most Muslims agree in much. I mean, you got non-Muslim scholars questioning the existance of Mecca, the whole damn city! --Striver 05:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Fatima and Ali were unfairly deprived of property and influence by Abu Bakr and Aisha. When Uthman was having trouble holding things together, Ali saw his chance to make right and conspired to have him assassinated. Then Mu'awiyya conspired to return the favor. Just a guess.Timothy Usher 05:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

lol, cool, somebody with an actual view! So, let me ask, how do you mean "influence by Abu Bakr and Aisha"? Im going to sleep, ill be back in like 10 houres or so...--Striver 05:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant that they were deprived of property and they were deprived of influence. Goodnight, see you tomorrow.Timothy Usher 05:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Good morning! Ah, i see. Do you care talking more about the subject, or was it just a small friednly chat? Peace! --Striver 12:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Striver. I'm not averse to discussing anything with you, just pretty busy with things other than WP.

Re: Byzantines/Romans. The Byzantines were of course a successor state of the Roman Empire, and called themselves the Romei. However, they were Greeks, not Latins, and are not generally called Romans in English.

Peace to you, too!Timothy Usher 01:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, hope you do well irl :)

So, regarding our previous talk, you wrote "When Uthman was having trouble holding things together, Ali saw his chance to make right and conspired to have him assassinated". Have you heard of the narrations where Ali sent his son to protect Uthman, but they did not manage to stop Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr from killing Uthman? And that Aisha had said "Kill the old fool/goat/jew (not my words!), for he has becom a unbeliver!"? --Striver 01:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

please edit Fatima Zahra

salam

Please look at and then correct the article.--Sa.vakilian 18:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wa aleikom salam. Ill try to make some changes. peace. --Striver 18:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Harām

Can you tell me of a decent online site which explains the laws on Diet and Clothing? In particular, on the wearing of gold as I am working on the Jewellery page. I was using Yusuf al-Qaradawi. The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam at http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/Q_LP/ but have been told that this is not the best for mainstream/average islam & as he is considered by too many people to be too radical. When you get a chance; thanks & peace. Bridesmill 18:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fatimah Zahra AS 3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fatimah Zahra AS 3.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 19:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What copyright violation is our brother Grenavitar is talking about

I encourage each and every single wikipedian to go and visit the website our friend Grenavitar posted. He blames me for copying the information from that website about the Sahaba and cousin of Hazrat Mohammed SAW (Abdullah ibn Abbas). The truth is, when I don’t know much about something or someone, before I start writing anything about it I always go to other neutral websites and absorbs information from then and after doing that all I starting writing on wikipedia.org. Grenavitar has blamed me for violating the copyrights of wikipedia and he also blocked me from editing any pages. After taking and explaining this matter to wikipedia representatives, hey allowed me to edit again. Grenavitar blocked me from editing any article and at the same time he was saying things about me that were not true, I had no way of defending myself since I wasn’t able to post my responds. But now I encourage each and every single wikipedian to go and visit that website and decided for themselves what really happened. Thank You Salman

AfD helper

I've found User:Jnothman/afd helper a real time-saver. Tom Harrison 21:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Did it not work? What went wrong? Tom Harrison 01:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, i was bussy working on the Islam related articles :) . Ill take a look at that soon, thanks in advance for the tipp :) --Striver 01:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Commendation

I just wanted to commend you on your neutrality in the new article you made Book of Fatimah. -- Jeff3000 05:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) But i dont think i can take credit for it, much of the material was a copy from The Hidden Words. But i gues i can take credit for chosinc what to include :D Peace! --Striver 14:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Combined Marriage

I hope you don't mind but I have moved Combined Marriage to Nikah Ijtimah for several reasons. One is that it is confusing for Westerners who might think that a Combined marriage is one with children from previous marriages. It is also inconsistent with other articles on Islamic forms of marriage - Nikah Misyar for instance. I have tried to fix all the links to it in other articles, but if I have missed one, I apologise but let me know. Lao Wai 19:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good decision, thanks for informing me! --Striver 19:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Article Deletion

Speedy deltion criteria A1 allows for the deletion of very short articles with no context. --InShaneee 20:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Check again, I redirected it to Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. There were actually two competing articles at one point, which I'd merged. Didn't know there was yet a third one.Timothy Usher 21:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Bro, thank you, but that is not what bothered me. What bothered me is that i have one deleted edit in that article that should never had been deleted, you dont deletet a article that clearly gives context for future expansion. This is not the first time InShaneee does that. InShaneee, im not sayin this to pick a fight or anoy you, its a genuin request: Please stop speedy deleting "Islam-stub" articles withouth double cheking, many times those stubs can be greatly expanded, but nobody has taken the time to do it. Again, i do not appreciate having deleted edits that countribute to my deleted edit%, please undelted the underlying edit in the redirect that Timothy Usher just created. peace. Honestly. --Striver 21:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

what's your refrence

salam

I read Misconceptions about the Shi'a.

There is written "Sheikh Mahmud Shaltut, who declared the Shi'a as a legitimate Islamic school of thought"

Maybe it's incorrect. I guess he legitimated "Jafari's feghh" not shiite school of thought , but I'm not sure.--Sa.vakilian 05:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, its the twelvers, not all Shi'a. Ill fix it later. --Striver 11:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

my dear friend, If you can read Arabic or persian here is his fatwa.

As I understand, this text shows "he legitimated "Jafari's feghh" not shiite or twelvers school of thought " I mean he's never said he agree with Imamat as the basis of shiite school of thought. This is my idia but you ask Zereshk too. --Sa.vakilian 18:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but unfourtunatly, i cant read Arabic or Persian :( --Striver 18:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not good for you. You can better understand Islam if you know these languages.--Sa.vakilian 20:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i know :( --Striver 20:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Tawassul merge

Salams. This is first time I've collaborated with a Shia brother on an project dealing with an Islamic subject and I must say that it's been a pleasure so far. :) --Nkv 11:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Dissident_Voice_(second_nomination)

I still do not understand your comment. By the way, "Bro" is both incorrect and inappropriate. Thanks. Ste4k 12:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Abu Sufyan ibn Harb

I will, you read Arabic, right? --DelftUser 18:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't apologies to me, it's your problem (and loss) my friend! --DelftUser 19:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

:) --Striver 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

explanation

salam

No, Qasim ibn Muhammad and Abd-Allah ibn Muhammad aren't the same. They were the sons of Khadija va rossolallah--Sa.vakilian 20:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I got confused. Why did Salman say they where on Zereshs page? --Striver 20:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I read Taher and Abd-Allah are the same.--Sa.vakilian 12:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Bingo

Good luck with the AfD. :-) Netscott 14:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad Muhsin Khan

Please explain how notable. Translators are normally NN - unlike original published author. If all Khana ever did was translate the Qur'an, then he's NN - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If this is all, I will take it to AfD. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Your votes on WP:IFD

Please read WP:FAIR. It lays out the policy for use of fair use images. An image doesn't become fair use just because WP is non-profit and we feel like using it. In the case of a media photo, media photos are almost never fair use. If they were, the media outlets would go out of business because anyone could just take their stuff and call it fair use. In the case of the building photo in the city article, WP:FAIR says that fair use images cannot be used just for decoration - they need to have a clear purpose. BigDT 01:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture

This discussion has been moved here from Talk:Human. -Silence 18:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i know, wikipedia is not cencored and what more, but i would still prefere to not get a dick in my face every time i get to this page...--Striver 00:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Its equal opportunity, you get breasts too. Did you see what Silence wrote above? Maybe you could go and get a shot like that with your own camera. Wouldn't it be cool if it was your own picture on the page? David D. (Talk) 18:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. I get that i need to be breasted in a article about breast, but why do i need to be dicked in a article about humans? --Striver 18:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Since when is the human article about breasts, yet there are breasts in the picture too. Anyway, this is beside the point. Is that a no to you 'can't get a picture' or is that a no to 'my equal opportunity comment'? David D. (Talk) 18:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well congrats, Striver. You spelled censored wrong. dumbass. These pictures show the truth of the human form. It is a description and an art. A "dick" is part of the famous symbol of Medicine. --Critic 05:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC) aka 69.67.229.248 (talk · contribs)

English isn`t his first language, asshole!Cameron Nedland 21:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium

Isn't that four reverts? or am I mistaken? Tom Harrison 00:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

ops... Sorry? I just un-did that. --Striver 00:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Man, you scared me! It was four reverts in THREE DAYS, not 24 houres.... phew! Bro, dont give me heartattack like that... --Striver 01:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I'm sorry. I've reverted to your last. I guess I'm due for a break. Tom Harrison 01:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:DV Boy.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:DV Boy.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. KWH 18:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Rafed.net.gif)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Rafed.net.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Shiaencyclopedia.gif)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Shiaencyclopedia.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

Orphaned fair use image (Image:S911t.JPG)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:S911t.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Al-Islam.org.gif)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Al-Islam.org.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Americanscholarssymposium.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Americanscholarssymposium.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Prisonplanet.gif)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Prisonplanet.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

Fair use logos

Please note that I removed the above images uploaded since they do not appear to be used under a valid fair use claim. They appear to be all website or minor organization logos used in a decorative manner in their respective articles. Please see WP:Logo, which suggests that "Generally, logos should be used only when the company and its logo are reasonably familiar (or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons)." See also WP:Fair use#Policy points 5 and 8, which suggest that no fair use images should be used in a decorative manner.

Also please note that while it might seem like I am targeting your contributions, I simply became interested in your many image contributions (many of which do qualify under fair use) after I saw the image Image:DV_Boy.jpg which lead me to believe you may have had a misconception of the use of the {{logo}} fair use claim. Thank you, KWH 19:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello - please see above where I believe I made clear the rationale. The next step would be to submit the list of images to WP:CP. Thanks, KWH 22:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for taking a while to get back to you... like most Misplaced Pages guidelines, it's somewhat subject to interpretation, but I'd say in the case of websites, it should either have a huge familiarity in general (like Google or Yahoo, which also happen to be corporate logos... or even Misplaced Pages) or a general notability outside the website, such as use in advertising or publicity. Obviously - if the standard were 'is it reasonably familiar (to those who have visited the website)' - then every website's front-page images can (and should?) be uploaded - even if the site owner doesn't like it. But if there's any doubt about the interpretation, then it should get straightened out in a discussion at WP:CP.

On careful consideration, I think that it would probably be more acceptable if a screenshot of the site were taken and tagged with {{web-screenshot}}, although it's suggested that it be used specifically in critical commentary, i.e. talk about what makes the web page shown in the screenshot different from millions of others. Regards, KWH 04:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sheen

I'm not sure what your Sheen reference was refering too. I tried to clean up and add references but i think you should check it. i could have got your intent completely wrong. David D. (Talk) 04:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I see I had that completely wrong! David D. (Talk) 04:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

:P --Striver 04:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hi Striver,

Ive got a question for you.

What (or how) would you translate the word طی الارض into? (the method Asef ibn Berkhia used to transport the throne of Queen Saba). Translating the title and name of the thing itself is proving to be the hardest thing.

I'm fixing to write an article on it. Hopefully.--Zereshk 14:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking for a title name for an article on the topic. Do you have a phrase or something at hand, like "terra traversing", or something like that?--Zereshk 16:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Howbout Teleportation in Islam? I just dont want us to become a laughing stock of sorts. But this is pretty interesting stuff nevertheless.--Zereshk 18:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Check it out dude: Teleportation in Islam.--Zereshk 20:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing I dont understand is why he keeps itching for conflict and trouble. I mean, Pecher doesnt even have a clue what "Tai al-Ardh" even means, and he slaps an Afd tag on the article. Why does he do that? Just to be confrontational? Oh well, ignorance is harmful thing. And if he wishes to be educated, I have no problem with that. :)--Zereshk 21:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well at least, she was willing to learn sometimes, and we would often get along. This character here is more intentional in his/her edits. And pretty confrontational as if trying to incite conflict. Why else slap a tag when you have no frikin clue about the article. That's just a purely confrontational move.--Zereshk 21:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Moves

I have no real opinion on which is "right". I do know that Salman has been warned to discuss his moves and not just say he's right since transliterations do differ. He doesn't discuss his moves and has no been banned for one week. Last time I moved everything back I kind of screwed up because I deleted some old histories violating the GFDL. It is very frustrating because his "discussion" on Talk:Abu Talib ibn 'Abdul Muttalib consists of you disagreeing... not any real attempt at consensus. I don't know who is right but I know if you had started moving so many pages without discussion I would have blocked you too. gren グレン 16:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I added it to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.5B.5BUser:Salman01.5D.5D_page_moves_again... so... another admin can comment. While full neutrality is likely impossible I don't feel that I am very biased in this situation. If you have been warned about arbitrary mass page moves and you don't discuss the issues and do it anyways then you deserve to be blocked. I would have blocked you if you had done it... and I did block him. If you want to make comments on WP:AN/I then maybe another admin will change it... or maybe I'll lessen it. However, it's a little ridiculous when he can't even discuss an issue. I'm not sure... I may even agree with him on this... but, you can't just go against consensus. gren グレン 16:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Congrats, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Barra_binte_Samawal. :-) (→Netscott) 17:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, best to develop an article as much as you can in your userspace to some level of maturity and then transfer it over to article space. Take it easy. (→Netscott) 17:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

of interest

Thought you mind find this MfD of interest. PT 22:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hadith definitions

Please remember that Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Please integrate these terms into encompassing main articles that include the definition, rather than having separate articles each with a one-line definition. —Centrx→talk • 06:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

James H. Fetzer

Hi Striver, what sourced information was removed? If you are referring to the sentence "On November 16 2005, he held a speech regarding conspiracies at University of Minnesota Duluth, where he currently teaches.", I moved that to the External links section. - N1h1l 13:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Shi'a view of Uthman

I'm a little worried about it... even though I did before because moving the history (I can't copy the history to you) may violate the GFDL... if not... it at least moves the history out of the article space. I should ask someone... or maybe they will give it to you on deletion review. Let me think about it for a while. It may take a while because I'm being lazy after five hours of soccer and I may forget. gren グレン 04:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with "fair use" logos

Images that you uploaded:

have been listed at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems because they are suspected copyright violations. Please look at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/Fair use claims if you know that the images are legally usable on Misplaced Pages, and then provide the necessary information there and on their pages, if you are interested in their not being deleted. Thank you.

-- Paddu 02:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:ALI IBN RABBAN AL-TABARI.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:ALI IBN RABBAN AL-TABARI.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

Newcomers

Assalam Striver.

There are two new comers who have asked me how they can help and contribute to Shia articles.

I am sending them your way, since you are doing more and have made more conributions. One is User:Jaber90, and the other is User:Sa.vakilian. He has written lots of stuff on the Farsi WP on Shia doctrines and belief. Please contact them both and put their talents and effort and enthusiasm to good work :) I am sure you know better than me what articles need work for the Shia topics.

Thanks.--Zereshk 01:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Salam. Shoma chetori baradar?(How are you?)

I'm working on Lebanon and articles about it. I'll mail you soon.--Sa.vakilian 13:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this sentence correct or there is grammatically faults:

There are many reasons Hezbollah has not ended its conflict with Israel. Technically Hezbollah is still contesting Israel's control of the Shebaa farms region. Lebanon and Syria support this claim but Israel didn't accept it and regularly enters its troops and plane in Lebanese territory. - Sa.vakilian

Hello Striver, thank you for contacting me. I would like to edit biographic articles, if you can you can give me a list. Also, I seem to find in articles about Islam expressions such as "Shi'as believe" and "Shi'as think" as if they weren't historically accurate. I also find weasel words such as "Some doudbt these Shi'as claims". We should change that. --Jaber90 16:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi striver. Im sorry I can't change much about these biographies because I don't know much more than what I already written. I also wanted to ask, and it may seem irrelevant, but what does the people and the government of Iran stand on what is happening in Lebanon right now?

Lebanon

salam baradar chetori?

Whould you please help us with these articles? , and

Maybe they're offensive and you can find it as a native. Although this issue isn't your favorite let us help our broders in their Jihad.--Sa.vakilian 18:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Check the pictures out: Awesome. Talk about brainwashing their children!--Zereshk 18:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Whould you please help us now?--Sa.vakilian 07:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Urgent

Please vote here. Thanks--Zereshk 00:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

btw, I found two more Shia users while browsing around: They are User:Sdoroudi and User:SZadeh. If they have enough guts to profess their belief in this time and age, then perhaps they might be of use in potentially editing some articles.

Just for your information :) --Zereshk 01:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Higham, Scott, and Stephens, Joe, "New Details of Prison Abuse Emerge", Washington Post, May 21, 2004