Adnan, you are revising MORE than just the Sunni section. There are three sections -- an overview, a Sunni section, and a Shi'a section. You are revising the overview in a Sunni direction, with all sorts of argumentative additions. Zora 03:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I edited the part were it says the abbasids reverted to Rashidin, and I also edited that shia contend and a group named sunni
I changed to the dominant group
( 1800 millions people) is there any thing wrong with that
do you call a 1800 millions a group?
Dominant means ruling. Large just means large. I don't think that the Shi'a would agree that the Sunni are dominant. As for groups -- it's inherently difficult to discuss this, because every single dang Muslim "group" believes that it, and it alone, constitutes the "true" Muslims, and that everyone else is a sect. Talking about this involves a lot of weasel-wording.
Now the bit re the origins of the Abbasids is relevant, but it would take a LONG time to explain properly. (They enlisted proto-Shi'a support for their revolution, and then betrayed them afterwards.) Maybe there's some way to phrase this that doesn't open up a whole can of worms. Or perhaps a link should be added. Trying to cover this topic as well as the succession to Muhammad would take the article far afield and be just too confusing to readers. Zora 03:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:28i edited.jpg[edit]
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.
Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 12:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Hamamassacre2.jpg[edit]
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.
Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 12:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- Avi 06:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Boy4a.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:PalestinianBoyVsIsraeliTank.jpg. The copy called Image:PalestinianBoyVsIsraeliTank.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.
This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 11:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Boy4a.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Karl Meier 18:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this image really necessary to the article? It is not really related to the text where it appears. Also, the picture seems to present Israel as some sort of faceless huge tank that runs over Palestinians. You may agree with this judgment, but I hope you can at least appreciate that this is a particular point of view, and wikipedia has a strict neutral point of view policy. Do you agree? nadav (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright problems with Image:Palestinerefugeegirl.jpg[edit]
An image that you uploaded, Image:Palestinerefugeegirl.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. nadav (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Image:Fridayprayerjerusalem.jpg. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8618830@N05/526106095/ in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDLor released into the public domain leave a note at Image talk:Fridayprayerjerusalem.jpg with a link to where we can find that note;
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Image talk:Fridayprayerjerusalem.jpg with a link to the details.
Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Image talk:Fridayprayerjerusalem.jpg saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.
Hi, with reference to your addition to Angles, speculating on a Scythian tribe living by the Ingul river: you haven't provided any evidence that this speculation is reasonable, and without any such evidence it's pretty wild speculation (an Indo-Iranian etymology corresponding to a river name in the Ukraine for a West Germanic people.) Please provide referenced sources for important claims like this. --Saforrest 04:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ibn Kammuna, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/J017.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 00:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Ibn Kammuna. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the Wikipedia image use policy. In order for an image to be useable on Wikipedia, it must be under a free license; a permission that only extends to Wikipedia or prohibits third-party commercial use or making of derivative works is not considered free enough. If your images are indeed under a free license, please have the author post a notice to that extent on the website where it appears, or e-mail to the Wikipedia mailing list (permissions-en[AT]wikimedia[DOT]org) to confirm that this is the case. (There is an exception for material covered by the fair use policy, but it is unlikely to apple to the images you have uploaded.)
In case of Flickr, please note that "Image is public" does not mean "Image is in public domain". In particular, this image has a copyright notice "(c) All rights reserved", so it can't be used, unless the author re-licenses it. (Flickr uses various Creative Commons licenses, of which Attribution license and Attribution share-alike license are acceptable. If the image description contains the text "all rights reserved", or an "equal sign" or "crossed dollar" icon - indication a no-derivatives or non-commerical license, respectively - it is an indication that the image is not under a sufficiently free license.) Again, you can ask the author to change the license, but please note that Flickr doesn't support changing a license for a single image only, so the best choice would be for the author to put up a text like "Notwithstanding any statement to the contrary on this page, I, author of this image, hereby license it under Creative Commons Attribution [1] [alternately: Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike [2] ] license", or to send a message with a similar text to the mailing list.
Hey Adnanmuf,
I really love the pictures you are adding to different articles. I have just one small request: please use the "preview" function before saving to see how the pictures look in the article. You have to size the pictures as well by adding "|200px" for example. Thanks for your additions and keep up the good work. Tiamuttalk 12:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing, please do not change captions to read incorrectly. You changed the ones on Arab dress from the fourth to sixth centuries to the seventh century. Why? Also, don't delete pictures, claiming they are an "Armenian family" when they are clearly not. In any case, Armenians are considered Arabs under the linguistic definition. Okay? Tiamuttalk 12:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are doing. You have now deleted the picture of a girl with the Palestinian flag which you added yourself. Could you explain your edits on the talk page? Tiamuttalk 13:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Armenians are not arab, you can not use a europpean looking armenian to represent arabs in the ARAB article, what is wrong with you yourself?
I like armenians but you can not mix things especially in an ENCYCLOPEDIA!!! and the picture of palestinian family at top is not palestinan family but Samaritan family, another photo taken by the American consulate then shows that and same dress.
and the picture is inhumane shows people living in ruins and dirty floor, the kind of pictures that were prevailing in the article beforeabubakr (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I told you before, I don't think they are Armenians. Do you have a source that says that they are? About the second picture, the caption clearly says a "family from Ramallah". It does not say they are Samaritans. Do you have source that says that they are? Anyway, Samaritans are Palestinian citizens and so deserve representation in the article anyway. As I wrote to you in the edit summary, if you insist on changing the picture, you can. But please move it to the place where the other picture is that you would like to use, instead of using the same picture twice and deleting that one. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 13:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes samaritans are palestinian minority. a picture of the palestinian themselves not a small minority (less than 400 people-samaritans) sjould be at top. The picture was taken by the photographer of the american colony . all his pictures focus on jews samaritans and their synogoges. it seems that was his interest!.also another pivcture from his collection shows a samaritan family ( he says so) that are identical to the picrure in this article!!abubakr (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked for edit warring and blatant POV-pushing on Palestinian people. Fut.Perf.☼ 19:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am shocked that I am blocked that I am the one who is been violated. The Evil Spartan! removed multiple edits of mine because he said they are blatant? all of them?, could he just removed the part that he thinks is blatant and pushing.
In one of his edits he remarked that the map of Palestine is offensive because it does not show state of Israel, I find that extremely insulting and offensive as a palestinian, the map is in wikimedia commons and it is a geographical map showing Palestine borders as the homeland of Palestinians ( ie where they come from and where half of them live already!).
I think deleting the map and his remarks are double defamation and humiliation.
As for the second edit which I think he is refering to is the part about British mandate of Palestine ending with a reference ( when I read the reference which is a British colonial report, it did not absolutely say anything of the paragraph, but rather what exactly I reported in my edit.
Please have your time to check the reference which is as follows:
During the British Mandate of Palestine, the term "Palestinian" was used to refer to all people residing there, regardless of religion or ethnicity, and those granted citizenship by the Mandatory authorities were granted "Palestinian citizenship".[1]
You can see that the report says nothing of that but myy new edit!!!!
I request express attention to my demand, for I think my being blocked is another indication of the discrimination of Wikipedia against Palestinians and myself personally which migh incur severe psychological and emothional damages.
Sincerely,abubakr (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know why evil spartan who started the edit warring was not blocked? and what part/s exactly were the blatant POV or pushing
since evil spartan removed a whole-sale of my edits obviously randomly. In case I demand return the non blatant edits back since I spent hours on them.
The map was needed for the difinition of the palestinian people which is the map of palestine 1922 the area the palestinians people come from!
What was wrong with my edit of the British Mandate of Palestine section since my edit represent exactly what its reference says!???
I demand since I am blocked that a wiki arbitrator makes a judgement on the case!abubakr (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I warned you about edit warring at your IP address, since your account had not edit warred at the time. As you continue to edit war, please be advised that edits from your IP will be treated as edits from you and all blocks and bans will be applied to both. There are no "Wiki arbitrators" to make content decisions. Content disputes are resolved through discussion on the talk page, or Request for comment or mediation. Thatcher 21:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Thatcher, you should stop terrorize me by the threat of unblocking like last time!
Last time I merely returned my edits back from the Evil Spartan who whole sale removed all my edits/contibution.
You can not treat us both the same. Evil Spartan started it, he was not blocked (used 3 times, I did not use three time rule!!!!)
You are also terrorizing other editors who revert to my edits by warning them on their talk pages that they are edit warring or puppet socket from me?
even though they did revert ONLY ONCE!
I am accumulating enough evidence of Zionist conspiracy in wikipedia agreed on by ots admistration!
Now stop bothering me, I only reverted onceabubakr (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wikzilla (2nd nomination) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
and you are being accused of discrimination and defamation against palestinians ( a policy of the wiki who you work under cover for)abubakr (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
you accuse me wrongfully of sockets but you wiki still did not do any thing on my request to unblock me discriminatively and defaming palestinians as explained in my appeal above!abubakr (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For your disruptive editing on Palestinian people and related topics, I have blocked you for a year. Fut.Perf.☼ 07:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Future Perfect, I noticed that Eleland had reverted my edit on the discussion Page of Palestinian People article! I think she complained to wiki that my edit is disruptive. She obviously did not under stand that my edit was a response to Nishidani remark that my reference to relation of Race and genetics would delight ((Gobineau, and, Houston Stewart Chamberlain) two white racists who use the claim of relation of race and genetics to their propaganda, I explained to him, that it is true ( see my edit reverted) that science have confirmed the relation just recently! (I referred him to Dienekez anthroplogy blog ( a highly scientific site by researcher Dienekez) for the recent studies about that) I explained to him that the genetic scientific discoveries have revealed sinister find: that the Europpeans of the R Haplogroup used to have a DNA gene that was responsible for Lactose intolerance 2 thousand years ago( ie. they could not drink milk) instead they had to drink the blood of their meres ( Herodotus referred to that in 450 BC about the Goths) the genetic discoveries were from the DNA of bones of the Goths ( blond blue eyed mummies in the Kurgan culture (Goths) cemetaries, hence my edit was completely scientific, especially to know that (talk/Palestinian People) is a B-class DNA studies forum, linked to directly by several universities! and my edit was completely related to the page and to the comment posed by Nishidani, but obviously Eleland did not under stand the relation between my response and his question, and thought they were unrelated!)[reply]
This is the second time I get accused and blocked unfairly!
I want to remind you again that editing in the discussion page is not disruptive editing, since int s not on the wiki page but in the discussion. Since you acknowledge you are not expert in DNA science I don't think you qualify to block or unblock in this matter. You should ask an expert! As I explained this talk page of Palestinian People is a forum for DNA studies in which people who are not interested in reading Wiki itself come to to check on the latest info about DNA studies.
Nishidani accused me that my mention of a new discovery in DNA studies revealed a relation between race and genes, would delight white racist proponents, I explained to him that not only I am against racists, but also the DNA studies ( that are binding) goes both ways, and proved the point against white racists this time, by confirming that the White race was the only race in ancient History that have experienced Cannibalism ( the Golden city of the Goths near Kiev where they found eaten humans bones! recently ( a reference available-not my OR), and that they indeed resorted to drinking blood as Herodotus reported about the Goths in 450 BC that they drank blood. The scientific explanation that because they found the gene of Lactose intolerance and the fact that Goths could not have agriculture ( wheat) they could not reserve food for the winter, and had to drink blood instead of milk to evade famine ( yearly basis!), However the people who study DNA genetic genealogy and visit the websites know about this milk intolerance gene and the consequences, I am not supposed to explain to you every thing here to pardon me. Tou should pardon your lack of knowledge and skewing wikipedia into an ignorance foggy road because of you lack of knowledge and being administrators at the same time ( many with little degrees ( breakfast MA degrees)and High school diplomas, and the opportunity for administrators to make political packs ( wolf packs) to lobby for Israel and special interest groups on this ENCYCLOPEDIA) destroyong its reliability validity and effectiveness ( damaging effects instead!)
Sincerelyabubakr (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You can not possibly hold me responsible for DNA studies that revealed this fact, nor responsible for reporting these studies on wiki (discussion page!!??). Such mind provoking and invoking dialogue are all over the discussion boards of DNA studies ( Palestinian people discussion page is supposedly one of them). I am not responsible for the studies. However if you want links to these studies I will do that gladly ( it will require one hour of work on the internet on my behalf) onlyabubakr (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the so called wiki community does not represent the community that uses and utilize wikipedia, and so being a free wikipedia, oilitical correctness varies between nations and groups of the world ( generation X like yourself, but also there are generation Y and z and WWII veterans, and different peoples from around the world, so it is immoral to impose you r narrow range POV on the whole world ( the intended target ofg the wikipedia, correct me if I am wrong). I also remind you that I am an old time contributor to wiki, and a specialist in DNA studies and I did not disrupt or went out of line in my discussion on the DISCUSSION page. It is you who are out of place hereabubakr (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
tl;dr. The more concise and to the point you are, the more likely it is someone will bother with your request. John Reaves 17:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John has a point—this is excessively lengthy... I almost feel asleep reading it. Nevertheless, I've gotten in touch with the blocking administrator, asking for more information on the block. Bear with me—I'll try and have a response to your request within the hour. AGK (contact) 19:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not responsible for scientific research if said so and so, and it was not my opinion that the white race (were vampires and cannibals when they were in Scythia), I refer you to Herosotus and Dienekes blog!
and my edit was in the discussion page ( a B class DNA ethnology page!) meaning for specialists in the field not for tiny brains like you.abubakr (talk) 08:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your request to be unblocked has been denied for the following reason(s):
After reviewing your contributions, and contacting the blocking administrator, it is clear that lifting the block on your account would have a negative effect on the encyclopedia as a whole. During your time away, please reconsider your disruptive editing techniques, and when the block expires, return with a fresh attitude towards the articles you are editing.
Request handled by:AGK (contact) 18:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Palestine girl with flag-284x358.png[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Palestine girl with flag-284x358.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kellyhi! 10:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- Avi 06:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Image:Fridayprayerjerusalem.jpg. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8618830@N05/526106095/ in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
