User talk:Mbcap/Archive 1

Please comment on Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Islam and blasphemy

I explained the revert on the talk page as you requested. Tbh The entire article needs to be rewritten. But anyway, I have done what I could to weed out the inconsistencies. Please be kind enough to give your opinion on the talk page. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Reformatted the Comment as you requested. Feel free to delete this. Ty for the help. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Please give your input on the Talk page. I propose merging the article with Blasphemy Laws, or at least rewriting it to differentiate between blasphemy and all out war.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input but I am afraid MORE is required(Mummy 1 reference is not by accident, it is by design). FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

My discussion with Nestwiki

Hello Nestwiki,

For your own good and also to realign the focus onto editing, could I recommend that you stop constantly making allegations against your fellow editor. I am referring to your allegation against freeatlastchitchat. I understand your objections and problems with him/her. However I think if you concentrate on the article grave worshipping and work together with the other editors, I think you will find in the end you will get the article you want. Mbcap (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you deny that freeatlastchitchat edits in wikipedia are just to add sectarian Ahmadi agenda and anti-Muslim references in all Islam related pages ? May be you should check history of his edits. Nestwiki (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Nestwiki, I do not affirm or deny anything I have no knowledge of. If you think he is acting against wikipedia policy then why don't you try and discuss/edit his changes. Would this not be better? Rather than complain about it, do something about it. Please get familiar with wikipedia policy before you do that. Edits that are well sourced, notable and follow wiki policy can not be simply deleted or undone. The only reason I am advising you is because I do not wish for someone to block you. Mbcap (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Your friend now has also added sectarian Ahmadi information in [1] Lahore Resolution page. May we should add sect of each and every individual mentioned in the Wikipedia !!! I wonder what will be the sect of Adam and Eve. Nestwiki (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There are other colleges listed in Chiniot page without references too but FreeatlastChitchat only removed Khatam e Nabuwat Institute of Modern Sciences (KIMS). Since this iw owned by a group opposed to Ahmadiyya. FreeatlastChitchatu is a serial Sectarian contributor who is on a crusade to add Ahmadiyya agenda and Anti-Muslim links/references in Islam and Pakistan related pages. Nestwiki (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I can not help but smile at your persistance regarding the issue. I hope you two can manage to settle your differences. Are you listening to what I have said; if you do not think an edit is not appropriate, you yourself should do something about it. Mbcap (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Really !!! So you implying that your friend FreeatlastChitchat changes are fine ? Nestwiki (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No I did not say that, I do not know him. I may have collaborated with him on some page. I was just saying that you should do something about it rather than complain. His changes may be fine or they may not be good. You have to decide and do something about it. Mbcap (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Caliphate dispute resolution

There is dispute resolution going on about the topic. Please be kind enough to give your opinion at the noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Caliphate_discussionFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

pushing on the ISIL talk page

Hi Mbcap,

Please review your comments in the recent thread as talk:ISIL in the thread that you entitled Barn door POV pushing in the lead:

• "telling me to reflect on the prominence of criticism suggest you may have an emotional bias towards the subject."

Yes I agree, I should not have said that. Mbcap (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Right, where would I be able to get another editors input who holds no bias. It is clear from you comments that you have a bias that is conflicting with your work on this article. I am dead serious about this assertion as well. I think someone who is uninvolved needs to have an input to arbitrate this issue. So far I have faced opposition from yourself and Greg."

Yes I agree, I should not have responded in this way. This response is out of context here and even with context it is not acceptable to reply in this way. I said the above after Legacypac said A and B.:

A) "Henceforth, I declare myself The Pope, my properties the Vatican, my group the Roman Catholic Church and my religious, political and military authority to cover all Catholics and Catholic containing countries worldwide. Further, the governments of Italy, Spain, and everything South of the Rio Grande are void. I'll also start the Inquisition for good measure. If you call me Legacypac anymore I'll cut out your tongue or beat you. Please write a Wikipedia article about me using your version of the NPOV criteria."

B)I'm dead serious. ISIL surely does not control Sinai or Algeria but it has not stopped them from declaring governments there.

I did think the analogy was unwarranted and did not reflect with any semblance the situation with ISIL. I think I may have stated that for one he does not have de facto control over the territory they have captured. Statement B I though was not relevant to the discussion and the fact that it was put forward in the way it was made me think that the editor was there to attack and criticize ISIL. (Not that any effort is needed to criticize them, there is plenty in sources) Mbcap (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• "You have already tried to use an analogy which speaks more about your bias about the group than anything else. Having said that I agree with your analogy but I choose to distance myself from that way of thinking so that I can contribute to the article in an unbiased fashion."

Yes I agree, I should not have said that. Mbcap (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

When another editor voices opinion, "I'm starting to think you are here to defend ISIL" you respond:

• "Funny you should say I am here to defend them". This was not said.

Yes I agree, I should not have said that. I get the impression that it is acceptable to use the phrase "I think you are" rather than being direct, when making judgement about another editor. I have responded in a similar way to point B above. I will keep this in mind. Mbcap (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Continuing you state:

• "the lead is biased"

Yes, this is true. The lead is heavily biased. Any more discussion on the issue I feel belongs on the ISIL talk page. Mbcap (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• "You have equated your rejection with Wikipedia policy rejection."

I agree, I should not have done that. I think it would have been better to respond in this way: The statement, "Wikipedia editors have rejected the name = fact " was referring to the title of the page which I was not contesting as I already knew there was previous consensus on the article title being ISIL. I was being told the reason why we cannot leave the Islamic state title without criticism was because it was rejected as per the policy WP:COMMONNAME and consensus. However when I came to read the policy, I realised the policy applies only to article titles so I did not see how this policy justified criticism of their name in the first sentence or anywhere else in the article where there name is first mentioned. Mbcap (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac had given the analogy, presumably related to the claim of al-Baghdadi as being caliph, to a situation in which s/he declared him/herself Pope and had also stated: "I'm dead serious. ISIL surely does not control Sinai or Algeria but it has not stopped them from declaring governments there". You responded:

• "You also use meaningless analogies and loaded statements like the one about declaring Sinai and algeria as their territory."

Yes I should not have said this. Please see what I wanted to say above. Mbcap (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• "I thought if we work towards a single point of reference, we both may get what we want." What we want should not come into it.

I disagree. My intention is to make the lead NPOV. Even though I disagree with Legacypac, I think he too wants to maintain NPOV. My version and his version of NPOV may be different. We both get a NPOV lead if we work towards policy which is akin to, two rays convalescing onto a single reference point. By deduction the lead would be NPOV and we would both get what we want. Mbcap (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• "I know interacting like this does not help convey the real intonation or emotion behind said words but I could not help but smile by your response ('nothing proscriptive here') Gregkaye." Please be specific within any inferred criticism.

Yes also not appropriate. I should not have said that. There is no context here as well which makes it seem worse than it is (even with context it does not look any better). The context was that after much discussion on the talk page, I decided to use wiki guidance to help drive us towards a resolution. To this you said, "There is nothing proscriptive here and it is the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to present relevant content in relevant ways." After you made the post with the just mentioned quote, I replied in the way I did above which yes was not an appropriate way to reply. Mbcap (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Sorry got carried away." Please don't then use such retractions for platforms for inferred criticism.

I agree. This was not necessary. Mbcap (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• "I could not get any consideration in regards to the POV nature of the article." Still stating opinion as fact.

I agree and disagree. My impression from our discussions were that my concerns were regarded as opinions and the current lead was asserted as NPOV and stated as fact. This was unfair I though as it is clear that there have been similar concerns raised in the past. I have been told there is plenty in the archives. I will go through them when I get time. Mbcap (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• "I feel it is necessary to deal with a non-neutral lead if one stumbles upon one." ditto

Sorry to have stated the obvious, I apologise.

• "Understandably there is a lot of emotion and utter disgust towards the group so it can be easy to get carried away." Even in a case that there was a lot of emotion, this issue has no relevance to the presentation of rational argument.

I disagree totally. Firstly though I wish to state that I said this following the above statement; "Because of that, it is my impression that over the last year, some editors who contributed to the lead did not strictly follow wiki policy on neutrality.". I did not say majority of editors. The news is filled with news of the ISIL beheading, executions and accounts of sexual slavery. There is now a 60 member coalition going against this one group. The problem is multifaceted but I think to view it as a dichotomy is a sensible way to go for now. This is because the other facets are obviously heavily weighted towards the common coalition goals. Legacypac has mentioned how he has been dealing with alleged "cyber terrorists", therefore it is not far of a stretch to think other parties in this conflict may wish to sway the article as well but towards another direction. Mbcap (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

In response to Legacypac's comment, "don't disparage the efforts of the many editors who have struggled to write a high profile article while cyber-terrorists come to wikipedia to push a POV" you said:

• "I did not disparage any editor. I was referring to non-neutrality being introduced which bears no semblance with the disparagement of an editor." A great "effort" has been made by 1,156 distinct editors on a page with 414 page watchers and you continually assert your opinion of n-NPOV as fact.

• I think the context of this comment is important and this is only part of my answer. The full statement from which the above quote was taken from this:

"I did not disparage any editor. I was referring to non-neutrality being introduced which bears no semblance with the disparagement of an editor. We could agree for example that a worthy piece of writing that is simply ordered in a wrong manner could introduce bias but still retain its value. What I said was that some editors got carried away and I alluded to the fact that I though it was done in good faith."

You and legacypac also assert you opinion as fact when you say the article is factual or that the article is not POV. Many other editors have raised similar concerns to mine. Please explain here or at the ISIL talk page why your or legacypac's views are regarded as fact and mine are not, even if my concerns reflect similar past objections that have been raised. So it would seem that yourself and Legacypac are also guilty of the accusation you have levelled at me. For this reason I totally disagree with you when you say I assert my opinion of n-NPOV as fact.

I have not denied the great effort made by those editors. I am new here so I can not say for certain but when it comes to the cohort of distinct editors on the page; most will probably add little information or to copy-edit the article. A smaller group within that cohort will do the majority of the narrative construction and debate the merits of due and undue weight or whatever it is that is done to take a page up the quality scale. I was referring to some editors in my statement. The comment above quotes me out of context and is then followed by, "A great "effort" has been made by 1,156 distinct editors on a page with 414 watchers". Reading this made me think you might be suggesting that I am criticizing all of them. If that is what is meant, equating my saying that some editors got carried away with it, would constitute a straw man argument. Mbcap (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• "What I said was that some editors got carried away". Without justification you alluded that I had got carried away and at this point you stated it.

Gregkaye, would you believe me if I said that was not aimed at you but rather it was a general statement and I only meant it as much. By this time in the discussion I had been at wikipedia coming up to a month and had realised that attacks against editors should be avoided. Mbcap (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The above was written before I saw your statement:

• "I have been doing a lot of wiki policy reading lately and I came across guidance that said something along the lines of, you should always dispute or attack the words and not the person who wrote them. In light of this and my accusation of yourself of bias sometime ago in our discussions, I would like to apologise for my obvious indiscretion. It will not happen again. "

Never-the-less, I thought that it was of relevance to send this to you with regard to presented content that I have considered to be at issue. The talk page is not a place for personalising arguments. I also hope that you can take on board any issues related to stating opinion as fact. In my view the ISIL page has attracted more than its share of argumentatively presented content. Your views are welcome but I would ask that you consider the presentation of content views as above. Please also consider striking unsubstantiated content. In cases where I see a need to do similar, I use the format struck text (add: added text). With signature I then also edit this from a form such as GregKaye 14:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC) to a form such as 14:09, 30 December 2014 ~~~~

I am hoping that a lot of the above is superfluous given your later statement here. GregKaye 09:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the analysis by Greg. I appreciate the apology and apologize if anything I said offended you. After dealing with some of the vandals who come here to push POV it is easy too fall into being snarky. I just cleaned up an article and template that had been altered to say the Canadian Govt is torturing scores of people including a convicted terrorist, before interacting with you. I want to state categorically that I never suggested you or any other editor in good standing is a cyberterrorist. My reference is to the various, now banned, WP:SPAs we have encountered. Legacypac (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on the Israel page today. I would like to write my responses in-line for the statements here. Also your efforts to highlight what seems to be at issue, is much appreciated. I will certainly reflect on this and make improvements. However I do feel that I need to defend some points as some of my statements from the ISIL talk page are written here, without context. I have been frank about my mistakes and I extend my apologies again for both of you. However when appropriate I have also been honest with my contentions. Legacypac, no apologies are needed as you have not offended me. Even if I was offended, I read this really good guidance or a WP essay on something along the lines of "don't give a fukism". I thought it was brilliant. I have been trying to find it ever since with no luck.

My biggest objections if I had to choose about this analysis would be; your accusation that, I regard my opinions as facts. I have raised valid concerns, which I have elaborated on to explain my reasons for those concerns. There have been past editors who have raised similar concerns so to be directly accused of something which yourself and legacypac are also guilty of, is not very nice. This is why I do not appreciate your accusation. Moving on, after trying to solve the issue of the biased lead, I ran into stiff opposition from both of you. I decided then to add the pov-lead template for the sensible reasons I have highlighted on the ISIL talk page. Legacypac, you then went and removed the pov-led tag in direct violation of the rules here.[2]. The two options as stated on the page were to either discuss with editors who have raised concerns or to raise the issue at the NPOV noticeboard. Neither of which you did. I reverted you for your innapropriate removal of tag and you reverted that very quickly. Oh and not to mention that you unilaterally decided the tag was not appropriate without discussing on the talk page. I assure you if it was me who did an edit like that I would receive a rebuke, most severe in form by yourself or Gregkaye. You keep asking me to follow policy but you yourself do not adhere to it. Also as I remember at the start of the discussion on the ISIL talk page, I was rebuked for my changing the order of the paragraphs of the lead. I was told to discuss and only then it would be considered for insertion. So you see how 2 different rules apply to different people. Moving onto to a more sinister note and I do not know if you two are aware, but I have been accused by no less than 3 people here [3], of being a sock puppet and they cite my contribution to the ISIL article. Clearly, these accusers, some of whom are hiding behind ips are not happy about the concerns I have raised. The stiff resistance I have received on the talk page in combinations with, other editors breaking of wiki policy whilst rebuking me for any transgression, the heavy rebuke of me regarding my addition to the lead whilst other editors edit freely without discussion as they feel like here [4], revert of my edit to re-insert the pov-lead as per the policy with no regard for the just mentioned policy, and lastly other editors accusations of me of sock puppetry in what seems to me to be an attempt to shut me up, all of which, have made me seriously reflect on how I wish to proceed or whether it is even worthwhile. It certainly is worthwhile and my resolve is most hearty. I shall return after exams. Regards Mbcap (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I really appreciate your honest responses. I was not aware you are being taken to SPI - not done by me. As for the POV tag, per policy you cite we are to discuss, and we are definitely discussing. ISIL is not a butterflys and rainbows subject, anything we write that is factual is not going to sound truly neutral. Note though we don't use terms like terrorist and value laden labels in the article except when attributed to others. There are plenty of people going for NPOV here, including myself, and the debates over NPOV meaning have sharpened my understanding of policy. All the best in your exams. Wikipedia will still be here when you get back. Legacypac (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap Again, thank-you for your invitation to the Israel talk page which is an obvious point of interest. On the point of stating opinion as fact for me it is simply the difference between asserting something like "the lead is biased" and strongly presenting "I view there to be a preposereous lead that is unfairly and disproportionately biased". Say what you like but please don't present it as fact until this is established. People can reply to you in regard to the later and there is a difference here. Wikipedia has this standard in regard to article content with regard to not stating opinion as fact and I think that this remains similarly good practice in talk pages. As I have mentioned in not so many words on the talk page I am not greatly convinced in regard to the placement of the content of the second paragraph content at a second paragraph position but we have to remember the cited nature of the group we are dealing with here.

I also had vandalism on my talk page indicating your account to be in use as a sockpuppet here but, to my knowledge, this is not being treated seriously.

I also understand your well intentioned and good faith edit into my edit as you responded to point by point to issues above. It is an important point in Wikipedia policy however that you should do what you can to avoid editing into other editors talk page comments or otherwise gain permission. Reference to these issues are found at WP:TPOC.

I really appreciate your responses to issues mentioned. Again I acknowledge that the majority of the long opening post above was written prior to my noticing your later comment "... you should always dispute or attack the words and not the person who wrote them..." but, despite, mailing anyway, your responses are appreciated.

I also respect that, when you invited Legacypac to the discussion here you did not do so by mentioning names in titles or even in content as has been the practice of other editors and which I am personally glad. GregKaye 12:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

have faith

From one "cyber-terrorist" [sic] to another, until you've been denounced as "anti-American," you've only just sampled the ISIL topics. I self-extricated from the ISIL mess as a result of the poisonous atmosphere. Good luck. DOCUMENT★ERROR 00:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

LoL. After a very long day of reflection and writing, trying to figure out in which way to go, it was a great comedic relief to read your post DOCUMENT★. It has indeed been quite poisonous if you mean it is hard to get something done. This is the least of it though. Editors have resorted to accusing me of sock puppetry, and some of them hide behind their ip's which makes me think that this bastion of mediocrity has a significant following who do not want the status quo on the page to change. Mbcap (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I've seen new editors in these topics hit with the sockpuppet thing; it always ends up just being a drive-by effort to intimidate a relatively recent contributor into silence instead of something that is ever actually reported. While I'm not contributing to ISIL articles proper, if you can organically ping me without WP:CANVASSING, feel free to do so at any time you find yourself being savaged too terribly as the editors in question can become incredibly nasty incredibly quickly. (A few editors in these topics seem to believe having an autoconfirmed WP account puts them one degree away from being a specfor operator with Seal Team Six and they are honor-bound to defend Old Glory to the death carpal tunnel syndrome.) DOCUMENT★ERROR 03:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your offer of assistance DOCUMENT★ and will let you know if and when suitable. I am going to take a break from ISIL for 2/3 weeks after which time I will try again to make the lead NPOV. It is funny you should mention the intimidation which seems to be a running theme. I was unfamiliar with SPI so when the allegations came, I offered to personally file an investigation against myself but was told I could not. Even though such an offer was made and I asked the accuser's to file an SPI instead as I was unable to myself, no one would file an SPI. However, thereafter they still continued making accusations. Surely a place like Wikipedia, must have processes to deal with such behaviour. If what you say is true, what do attempts to silence editors suggest about the state of the current article? Surely if editors felt an article was NPOV and followed policy, they would not resort to such tactics, as the would know the article would stand on its own merit based on the two criteria I have just mentioned. I guess we will never know who is behind this or why. Can I ask you, am I allowed to copy and paste the sock puppet allegations discussion against myself to my own talk page to retain for my records? Are there any rules forbidding this? Mbcap (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, as long as you don't alert other editors about a SPI with the intention of them commenting on it, there is nothing that should preclude you from posting a link to your userspace for personal reference. I have done this myself and it is a convenient way of bookkeeping. SPI cases are usually easily resolvable and it's difficult to lobby someone into a SPI block, unless you don't reply at all. So I think this makes sense. DOCUMENT★ERROR 09:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A rose by any other name

I believe you have answered your own question. -- PBS (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"The qualifier is Islamic State (islamist rebel group) as described in the first sentence of the lead" That is not a qualifier it is a disambiguation extension as such you need to remove the question mark from your propose move title. -- PBS (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I meant the qualifier within the bracket is 'islamist rebel group'. I read the move policy and it said that if an editor is also asking for other suggestions in regards to the qualifier, a question mark should be placed. Am I wrong? Let me know and I will fix it. Yes PBS, sorry about that, I was going to wait till 23rd but someone started a discussion on name change so I had to make a decision. My apologies. It did not seem like a page move request should be done a newcomer but I thought I would be bold. I think the name is importent if that is what you are implying by 'a rose by any other name'. I would like wikipedia to stick to policy so that everyone can respect it as an encyclopaedia. I do not wish for it to be used as a propaganda tool even if the aims are good. That is just my opinion. Mbcap (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest removing the question mark, because it is clearer and the less ambiguity the more likely there is to be a consensus. Besides in this case there will be other suggestions (have you read the previous 9 requested moves?). I presume you did not see my edit history comment: Revision as of 02:47, 7 January 2015 "commented out the moratorium on page moves (it is now open season)" -- PBS (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

People express all sorts of reasons for the support or otherwise of names see for example a name like Burma or Ivory Coast, the former was changed from Myanmar partly on source based arguments and partly on support or otherwise of the regime. The arguments over Ivory Coast may appear to be over usage in sources but much of the argument is really to do with those who think Wikipedia ought when there is doubt use accent marks and those who think the default ought to be not to use accent marks. One of the reasons why the emphasis was shifted to usage in English language reliable sources for article titles was to try to cut down on this type of dispute because editors may hold different opinions on the best/correct name while in good faith agreeing on the most common usage. The trouble is that this does not always work. For example the article American Revolutionary War is called that because it is a name familiar to many American editors because American sources use that name, (British sources tend to use American War of Independence). It is up to the closing administrator do weigh up the reasons given for the opinions that are expressed including those based on WP:POVNAMING and WP:POVNAME. -- PBS (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining PBS. If it is ascertained for example that more than 50% of the top 30 reliable sources of news have changed to new name; would it count? When are you going to wrap up the discussion so I know how much time I have to consider how I want to go forward? Can I edit my proposal to sugggest a different name? Am I allowed to edit my proposal on the move request to remove the question mark?

My apologies for asking so many questions. I am just multitasking about a thousand things. Mbcap (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Only reliable sources count (not all news sources are reliable and not all reliable sources are news egForeign Secretary statement on ISIL: Iraq and Syria -- Government sources were important in deciding the Burma title ), I can not answer for %ages.

2. I am probably not going to close this move request (as I closed the last one for this article). This RM will run for at least 7 days (per normal).

3. You may remove the question mark. Suggested new names should only be done as a bullet marked "Comment" below the support and oppose already posted otherwise it would be very confusing.

-- PBS (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

An admin will close it after 7 days or more (see WP:RM for details). As to caps or not caps etc. follow the advise in the Article titles policy. -- PBS (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move: "After the nomination has been made, nominators may nevertheless add a separate bullet point to support their nomination, but should add "as nominator". -- PBS (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

PBS I assure you it was not intentional. I am very sorry for doing it. Plus, I have struck off my support comment until we get a full picture of what name is most common. Mbcap (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Please reconsider this comment

Your comment [[5]], in my opinion, should be reconsidered. I do not believe that your comment was intended to imply what is meant on wikipedia by a conflict of interest, which you may find here. I realise we are both fairly new editors, so I may be entirely misunderstanding your comment and wikipedia policy, but I believe everything after "I decided to give it consideration only after Gregkaye & PBS raised an issue." should be reconsidered immediately. If you actually believe he has what is considered a conflict of interest after reading the above, then consider if it violates WP:OUTING.

I believe you acted in good faith. If you have accidentally made a claim about another user you did not mean to, or no longer mean to, especially if you have no evidence for what you said, you should remove it as quickly as possible using strikethrough

I may be entirely wrong about everything here, but on the off chance I am not, I suggest you consider whether I am correct, and then if you believe me not to be, double check (and then if you do, ignore this post). I am posting this for yours, and the editor you mentioned benefits.

Feel free to respond to this message, delete it or archive it without replying, I will be watching for replies so there is no need to ping me. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that John. I did not think it violated WP:OUTING because I read it before posting that. Even still I struck the comment, for the off chance that I have missed something. I am sorry for causing trouble. Mbcap (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Now I know what you mean. Just read the WP:COI page. Yes he definitely does not have a COI according to Wikipedia definition. I am so stupid. Now I need to go apologise to him. Mbcap (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I choose not to respond in the thread as it was such an outrageous allegation you can't have meant what you said. I assure you that I am striving for NPOV for the article and I believe (in common with world leaders and journalists etc) that "Islamic State" is a highly POV title. I am welcome to express my observation that many people think it is highly POV all day long. Legacypac (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not mean it in the way Wikipedia defines it. I will not explain what I meant, as I do not want this matter to breath any more air. When I raised the issue on your talk page, you did not tell me what I was doing was wrong. If you had, I would have never done this. Again, all I can do is apologise. Regarding you statement about you belief that it is POV, world leaders would agree with you but not journalists from what I can see. Mbcap (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:73 (number)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:73 (number). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Translation

I saw you translated a users query into an inscription on an Islamic State flag. Could you decipher what it says at the bottom of this flag? It might be in Urdu and not Arabic. [6] StanMan87 (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

My Arabic is very weak User talk:StanMan87 but it says:

"There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the prophet of Allah. "The Al-Qaeda group in the Indian Subcontinent."

It is Arabic, no Urdu here. Hope it helps. Mbcap (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! StanMan87 (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The image is not stored on Wikipedia but on commons and its use in any particular Wikiepdia article depends on free use (Wikipedia:Non-free content). This is not an area I have had to consider so I suggest you read the non-free content guideline and if you have further questions then ask for advise at Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion as they will know what to do in this instance. -- PBS (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You know Arabic

Can you check the Arabic name on this new article? Yathrib,_Iraq I know it shares a name with Medina but can't figure out if it is named after Yathrib/Medina. Also can't find a population on any English site. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not called just Yathrib. It reads "Nahiyat Yathrib". Arabic has no vowels and I do not have the knowledge to decipher the word anymore. It could possibly mean "Hand of Yathrib" or "Way of Yathrib", probably got the name over a thousand years ago as a resting place for the yearly hajj caravans from Asia, who would make the journey to Medina (Saudi Arabia). I think that page needs to be renamed. You would need to check the historical details, I am just guessing why it is called that. Mbcap (talk) 07:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I found some good English news stories with the Yathrib name (around Iraq War and current war). Maybe drop the Arabic then. Legacypac (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Umm Kulthum bint Ali

Hi, just wanted to drop by and say your editing on Umm Kulthum bint Ali could be considered edit warring. While you do seem to be in the "right" here (reverting a new user who edits only that page, removes sourced content, and writes ridiculous edit summaries) some won't see that as massively mitigating. If the other user continues their editing I suggest you follow some of the steps outlined here at WP:DR. Also, hopefully you're aware of this, but given your significant contributions to that article it may help for you just to make sure you're happy you're editing in line with WP:OWN. (As an admin has said they don't think the edits are obvious vandalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=642459731) I think you'd be on shaky ground trying to claim the vandalism exemption from 3RR for any new edits) Happy editing! GoddersUK (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know GoddersUK. I will take that on board and apologise for misunderstanding the situation. Mbcap (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. FWIW I don't think you've particularly misunderstood the situation, you just weren't necessarily aware of how things are done on WP in some situation. I believe some WP users can be quite unforgiving when it comes to 3RR. I don't think the other user's edits seem constructive (I reverted an IP edit that I think was the same user a while back), they seem to be removing information that doesn't fit with their beliefs, but best to be safe and keep within 3 reverts (I've come close to edit warring before now... I know how easy it can be, especially in cases such as this which are best described not-quite obvious vandalism!). GoddersUK (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Reconsider use of "Drivel"

Please consider your post here. I personally consider that there is enough aggression regarding the ISIL situation without editors making unjustified comment.
"do not equate wiki policy with your person opinions." please consider either substantiating on the page or striking the comment. You quite literally make empty accusations with an utter vacancy of cited reference.
"your entire post which mostly consists of even more drivel and empty air, I am not going to entertain", My post was in reply to your content. I do not disrespect you and yet it seems to me that you repeatedly refuse to return the favour. If, for whatever reason, you are not going to reply, fine, but then don't slur with your unreferenced criticism.
"efforts are made to use an encyclopedia as a political advocacy tool." Just five sentences earlier you were criticising opinion and yet again you present opinion as fact. You have you OPINION. Mine is, for what it is worth and with no confidence now that you will assume good faith, is that we are representing the other (dominant) side of Muslim opinion. "one part of your post which was actually good" so why the hell do you start by saying "your entire post..". This whole approach I see as incredibly and pointlessly argumentative.
Please take a look at WP:CIVIL. Please try. It talks here about "consideration and respect" with advice to Focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Your uncited wording is "drivel" and "empty air".
You appologise for aspersion, fine, stop it. Don't make excuses. We all have to edit in an environment in which there are conflicting views. Please accept that it is in good faith that I sincerely believe that the use of "Islamic State" unqualified is a "political advocacy tool". Again you continue, as far as I can see, to state your opinion as fact. Please, I again appeal to you, do not do this. Where you have a point to argue, then argue that point. This is a fair approach to take. Do not edit my content presented here. GregKaye 20:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Greg off course I respect you. You have done nothing but help me whenever I have requested it. And off course I will strike the comment if it does not please you. I will strike it now after this. I really did appreciate at first that you posted a link to my comment without quoting it out of context but then when I read your entire post, you have quoted me out of context. I am referring to "I am not going to entertain". You do know what I was not going to entertain. Why did you not feel the need to complete the entire quote? I said I was not going to entertain or qualify it as the talk page is not a place for discussion on the subject.

My opinions are not fact, you are right about that but policy is policy. Reading the move request policy, it seems an uninvolved admin will judge the request based on the merits of the arguments raised. I have repeatedly informed yourself and others that when considering a title change, the moral or political right does not play into consideration yet this is completely ignored. I understand your objections with the name but we are not proposing "Islamic State". The two options that I think are POV are:

• "Islamic State of Iraq and The Levant" or ISIL or ISIS spelled out or ISIS - they are not the common name, the use of the name is politically motivated which does not warrant consideration as previously explained.
• "Islamic State" - this could be confused with the normative Islamic State, it is also politically motivated on the groups part which also does not merit consideration as previously explained. The thing it has going for it is that it is the common name with or without qualifier. It is also so widely used now it has become a proper noun and the discussions surrounding the use or non-use of the name has made it very well known. Due to this, the relevant policies elaborate on how, there is no danger of it being considered taking a side.

Therefore the name proposed is the following which would avoid the above two and use the common name (I have purposefully avoided considering the moral or political right):

• "Islamic State (islamist rebel group)" - this is the common name and with the inclusion of a qualifier avoids the above two names. Because of the extensive use in reliable sources it has become a proper noun so there is no danger of POV. The use of the qualifier also reflects a subset of sources which do use a qualifier like AP and AFP, among other I think.

I do assume good faith on your part and also others. I understand the objections raised but here we have to be impartial due to the controversial nature of the topic and try our absolute best to comply with our own standards. In regards to me suggesting you are equating your opinions with wiki policy please read the following from yourself:

• "I do not think that Wikipedia's code of ethics (within its guidelines) can allow us to use a name that is well documented as being rejected by a wide range of groups.That you have a problem with a description of "life taking killers" for a group of extremely well documented "life taking killers" I think shows your bias. They are serial killers that repeatedly kill their captives and kill those that are perceived to pose a potential threat to their militant control."

It has been repeated many times how moral or political right is not taken into consideration when discussing a title change. This quoted paragraph and the one that follows is not in line with wiki policy. You are taking about moral and political rights and asking me to qualify it. Do you understand that I just wish to build an article and not debate politics or morality. Gregkaye I purposefully do not choose to debate it because I prefer to work from behind a veil of ignorance. Politics and morality are complex, ever changing with times and there is heterogeneity when it comes to the entire spectrum of opinions. There is relative morality, absolute morality and amorality which if taken as a whole would not allow me to discuss issues such as this with objectivity. I mean this from an impartial or scientific standpoint and plus this is not the forum on which to have such debates. However, it must be said that these opinions which I am sure will be found extensively in secondary sources, do merit consideration and inclusion when it comes to the body of the article. That is an entirely different issue and the NPOV policy you constantly refer to apply to this. This brings me on to your inappropriate use of NPOV policy when it comes to the article name. This just aforementioned policy, if you scroll down to the naming section elaborates on the application of NPOV on naming and directs you to WP:AT for more information. Now that would be appropriate use of the NPOV policy. I hope this explains some of the points which were not agreeable with you.

You also say that my words suggest bias on your previous post on the talk page. I chose to ignore this and not to elaborate on that point there because it would not achieve anything in regards to improving the article. You suggested I was biased. How can this be the case when even with all the international condemnation of the group and their documented actions, I have still maintained impartiality when it comes to policy and its application in regards to the name of the article. If I allow the circus surrounding the issue to affect me, it will impact on my contribution to the article. We have to make sure, that the world witnesses that we apply our standards to ourselves first and then demand it from others. This will only increase the credibility of the wiki and not to mention the criticism section itself within the islamic state article which would carry more weight with the reader.

Further in your post you talk about journalists being the 6th most despised profession. Why is this relevant here? Why is it important how despised they are? We have own policy which does not talk about use of information from "despised" professionals. I see you are not happy that I have called your post which did mostly consist of view of world leaders, the ethics of journalists, the morals and actions of this group, the view of other islamist groups; as drivel and empty air. I considered it so because of the titlechange policy states that those issues do not merit consideration in a discussion about a title change. So you see, in this case where we are discussing a title change, I am entitled to completely discount those points which you have raised.

As to my point about use of an encyclopedia as a political advocacy tool, I hope the above about non-consideration of political and moral rights in relation to title change, explains why I think that way. Even though the title change policy has been explained and the NPOV issues addressed through proper reference to WP:AT and WP:POVNAME, you continue with the same arguments which do not warrant consideration. Again I hope this explains it.

Gregkaye you also again quote me out of context by telling why I said "your entire post". I said your entire post which mostly consists of". Do you see why I do not appreciate the non-inclusion of "mostly" in that quote? I said mostly and I have explained above as to why I considered it so. Regardless I will withdraw it and strike it through now. If you ever would like any other comment withdrawn in the future, please let me know and I will try my best to withdraw it. Mbcap (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Mbcap Please note, on a political or partisan basis I could have easily torn into your approach in your recent talk:ISIL post. This would have served the representation of my argument well. Even though at this point it might have been done fairly due to your incivility, I thought it best to refrain in the vane hope that we might raise the greatly lacking level of civility in and around 'SIL related discussions. Respect to editors and to the Wikipedia discussion process should rightly be shown in the language used therein. WP:CIVIL is very clear.

You say above, "you have quoted me out of context. I am referring to "I am not going to entertain"". My quote of your derisory comment was, "Your entire post which mostly consists of even more drivel and empty air, I am not going to entertain". Do not assume that I felt any need. Try to assume good faith.

• You view that "the moral or political right does not play into consideration yet this is completely ignored" but this is not the case. The argument is that there is a legitimate NPOV issue at stake. 'SIL have presented a POV of themselves as "Islamic State" and others think that they are anything but this. A opposing view would be to call them UIS Uni-Islamic State as per suggestion recorded within article content. A neutral title, in my POV, is ISIL.
• You continually speak of "politics and morality" the issue is representation in regarding the views of the majority of Muslims that your proposals would, as far as I can see, disregard. This is the NPOV view. The paragraph of mine that you quoted was perfectly correct. It represents the views of the majority of Muslims and supporting groups that reject 'SIL, its philosophy, its actions, its widely unsupported claim to power and its name change.
• I found your objection to my mention of the group as "life taking killers" to be quite ridiculous. This, from everything I have seen, is by far the main thing that the group is known for. We are here to present facts. I took your objection to this to be representative of what I take to be your bias.
• Again you dismiss the fair arguments presented with a dismissive accusation of "circus". You continue in asserting your derisory spin on things. I raised a series or policy based objections to which I interpret that you had no response other than to sidestep.
• My response regarding journalists, as you know, was in response to your similarly irrelevant reference to a code of ethics the application of which, for instance, a great many slandered and otherwise damaged parties worldwide may happily dispute.
• Again you misrepresent by saying "Gregkaye you also again quote me out of context by telling why I said "your entire post"." I said on second occasion, "why the hell do you start by saying "your entire post.."." This was after quoting your assertion, "your entire post which mostly consists of even more drivel and empty air, I am not going to entertain". For goodness sake.
• Please note, all I am doing is to try to foster a more civil atmosphere on a talk page that is not dismissed as containing a "circus" and where policy based points are not dismissed without substantiation being offered as "even more drivel and empty air". You say ".. I respect you". All editors rightly should be shown respect and this is a principle clearly presented in WP:CIVIL.
• Please, there are enough unnecessary conflict in the world. Thank you for striking the worst of your dismissively written content. I hope that, as on occasion we may need to continue discussion, we can do so with civility as we address the issues concerned. GregKaye 10:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Greg Clearly we disagree on certain issues. It is not very easy to gauge how someone feels with internet communication but this post makes it seem that you are not very happy with my points. I can only apologise and say that I do not wish to give you a hard time or to disrespect you. For me to fully explain the use of the word circus, would lead me down the line of discussing politics which is something I wish to avoid. I explained I did not want to entertain it on the basis of wanting to avoid a debate on the subject of the article itself. This is something mentioned at the top of the talk page, advising editors not to debate the topic. I do not see why you are not happy with this. I do understand however, if you are not happy with the drivel or empty air comment. I assure you there is no spin on my part. You say I am sidestepping a series of policy based objections so please point them out to me and I shall address them. There is certainly no issue that I am side stepping with intent.

Your comments that you raise again about the rejection and life taking killers and so on, yes they are warranted topics of discussion if we were talking about the body of the article. I do not see how that has any relevance to change of article title, for reasons I have elaborated on numerously. This is not a legitimate NPOV issue like you mention because we do not take into account moral or political right in deciding name change. If we are to take into consideration the view of all Muslims, then we should also take a little detour to the Muhammad page and remove the pictures as it is not wise to follow double standards. I have mentioned many times before, we will follow the format of established news agencies and organisation who themselves use the name with qualification.

The whole word can do all it likes in regards to disputing "journalists" but they are not the ones publishing secondary source information. That is an observable reality. The journalists as I see it, have also decided not to play into this "circus". Whether editors like it or not, they publish news which constitutes secondary sources and that is what we use here. My reference to the code of ethics was in reply to your comment about finding their use of the name inexplicable. It really does not matter what you think of their use of the name. What matters is that they have used it.

If you feel I am sidestepping anything, do let me know and I will answer. I am sorry if I have caused you any hurt or disrespect. If in the future you find anything I write objectionable, then I would say please do not ascribe to malice that which could be explained by stupidity. Mbcap (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You're response, to me, misses the issues. Your content above presnents:

• "... You suggested I was biased. How can this be the case when even with all the international condemnation of the group and their documented actions, I have still maintained impartiality when it comes to policy and its application in regards to the name of the article. If I allow the circus surrounding the issue to affect me, it will impact on my contribution to the article."

How would any justification of your use of the word circus necessitate leading you down the line of discussing politics? You were speaking about the naming of the ISIL article within Wikipedia presenting yourself, it seems to me, as a paragon of NPOV while dismissing surrounding arguments in relation to the naming as circus.

In the article talk page you raised issue with my mention of "life taking killers" which came in the context of my question, "How the hell did journalists come to the decision to ignore the wishes of the majority of the Muslim world so as to follow the preferences of a a group of liberty and life taking killers?" How is this question not legitimate? The majority of Muslims, who largely dispute 'SIL's assertions, typically present live and let live and live in peace approaches to life and yet media sources are opting, I suspect subjectively, with the presentation provided by a group of "liberty and life taking killers". There was nothing wrong with my question and nothing that justified your raising of argumentative issue.

I will not ascribe indiscretions to stupidity. All editors have equal obligation to follow the standards that Wikipedia presents. Even the most stupid person can treat others with a full level of civility and respect. There is nothing I am saying here that wants to alienate you and hope that you will consider me to be amenable to cordial debate. If you do not want to continue to alienate me then please end your disrespectful "drivel and empty air" and "circus" type comments. Obviously what you do is up to you but I ask please refrain from content that others may find objectionable. As noted there is already "enough unnecessary conflict in the world". GregKaye 14:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Greg, thank you for your post. I have exams atm so will reply to all your points when I get time. As to your last paragraph, yes I do think you are very amenable to cordial debate. Your previous posts on my page, attest to that fact. I am sorry if I gave you the impression of me wanting to alienate you. That would be a very perfidious thing to do. I know you replied on the ISIL page but I will not continue that conversation on the talk page as I think improving the article is more important. For that reason I will withdraw the comment you took issue with. I hope you also consider me amenable to constructive debate. Again, I would like to sincerely apologise for any difficulty I have caused you.

Note added later: I have not forgotten about your post on the ISIL page. I will reflect on the points you raised and I will also read the policy links you posted. If you do not mind, I will reply here. 06:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Mbcap (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with you GregKay. Mbcap is a sockpuppet of the banned user Technophant. He moved to another location with another static IP and got a new fake email address. He came back to pull the same shit as before editing the same articles. See WP:Duck. Quack Quack 180.87.192.228 (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This is beyond belief, seeing as you are like those who like to jump through hoops at elevated water temperatures, why do you not come out from behind your IP. I told you before, your attempts to discourage my work, will only cause me to redouble my efforts. If you do know this user who you accuse me of being, it is highly inappropriate to detail his personal information. This behaviour is unacceptable. Mbcap (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree this is ridiculous and inappropriate, though said content has been removed by oversight user. Even if you (IP) actually believe him to be so, posting this on his talk page is aspersion, but you knew that which is why you used a single-use IP to post this claim. Mbcap, I'm not sure if you can do anything to stop this disruptive behaviour or if it can be tied to the main account it is from. Perhaps you should seek advice. Needless to say, the attempted outing which may or may not be accurate for you and/or the other mentioned user (WP:Outing policy says to neither confirm nor deny such accusations). Attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I've never seen Gregkeye make the accusation the IP is making. Legacypac (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks John. I have tried to seek advice but it has been of no avail. It is not just this IP, there are 4 others on another page who level the same accusations. Calls have been made for them to file an investigations but I feel these are just tactics employed to discourage my input into the ISIL page as they all relate to that. Probably it will just have to be tolerated. Mbcap (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what I've done that deserves thanking. I'm sure Legacypac as a user who has dealt with at least one sockpuppet on his talk page condemns what appear to be sockpuppetry by logging out.

Perhaps one solution would be considering asking for semi-protection on your talk page? John Smith the Gamer (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I know of one specific editor that had major conflict with Technophant (Worldedixor) but there may have been others. Technophant was known, amongst other things, for his advocacy of the use of the name "Islamic State", also for his use of sockpuppetry. However, Technophant for instance had more knowhow IMO with regard to policy than you initially displayed and he was often unwilling to engage, IMO, in resolution based dialogue. Personally I think that Wikipedia should only allow contributions from registered and maybe verified editors which would help get past problems such as this. GregKaye 13:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye is the same person as Wordelix. He came to Wikipedia shortly before that editor was banned. He played Wikipedia to get rid of a bad username and start using his own name. He even pretended to be in conflict with himself. He is a master of choosing static IPS whenever he wants to change them. 193.109.199.248 (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the unsolicited allegations. Please concentrate on improving the Wiki rather than airing baseless kilobytes of information. Mbcap (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Greg would it be OK for me to rename two sections on my talk page as follows:

• pushing -----> Your pushing on the ISIL page
• Drivel -----> Reconsider use of "Drivel"

If you object, I will leave it as it is. I just want to change it for ease of accessibility. Mbcap (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Islam & Sex

As far as I know, Islam highly restricts sex. Even the scope of sexual pleasure between husband and wife is very limited. Before praying, even the husband can't touch his wife. In Islam, sex is only for procreating, and during sex the husband can't touch or see his wife's boobs. Muslim men are not supposed to get as much sexual pleasure as Western men. Also lip-kissing even between husband and wife is not allowed.--Islam Follower (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Islam Follower Thank you for the interesting insight which you have volunteered here. I gather you have reliable sources for your comment, in which case please do feel free to edit the relevant article page. I am not sure if you are just commenting or asking a question so how may I help? Mbcap (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Before praying, even the husband can't touch his wife. Because it breaks the Wudu.--Islam Follower (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be written in a way that guide young Muslim men properly, keep them from Haram, and let them know that sex is only for procreation and not pleasure.--Islam Follower (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, I see. Where are you going with this? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's aim is to collect the sum of notable human knowledge with the condition that it be verifiable and presented in a neutral way. Therefore Wikipedia does not care in regards to guiding young Muslim men properly. As to your comments about this and that and the other, I would like to point out that the nucleus accumbens which is encompassed within the ventral striatum, compels a man towards sex whether you like it or not. I am sure if you conducted a survey of 10,000 people from all strata of society and culture, 99.999% would agree sex is highly pleasurable, with the notable exception of those who suffer from sexual aversion. It is slightly unclear, what you are hoping to achieve by commenting on this talk page but I will assume it is in relation to improving an article. For that reason I have given your comments a flicker of thought. Please let me know if I can help you any further. Mbcap (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Upper limb neurological examination, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Screening. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Justification secton

I don't understand why you reverted my deletion of the Justification section. We just got done deleting it over copyvio and POV reasons, before it was added back by a Sockpuppet. Kindly revert your reinsertion of that nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it was well sourced and relavent to the topic at hand. It was certainly not nonsense. They are the reasons they give for their actions and I do not see how there is anything wrong with including it in the article. Mbcap (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User_Talk:GregKaye. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Stop making broad negative statements about me in various parts of Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

To Legacypac: As an editor who is involved with yourself, I refrained from posting a warning like this on your page, when you made an innapropriate revert on the abu bakr al-baghdadi page. You have exhibited behaviour that demonstrates ownership over the ISIL page as evidenced by

• your closing of talk page discussions,
• censoring editors comments (does not matter if they are socks, if they are). You also censor normal editors who are not sock like here [7]
• deleting huge chuncks of an article without concensus, as another editor had expressed a desire to see some of the content re-included in the article in an appropriate manner
• deleting an appropriate portal link on an ISIl related page claiming it is a "poor portal" link.
• your labelling of other editors who you disagree with, as cyber terrorists (see barndoor pov discussion)
• you threaten other editors for their edits on ISIL related pages, by saying you will report them such as here [8]
• you question my credibility as you have done now in at least 3 places; here, on the ISIL talk page and also the abu bakr al-baghdadi page --->this is you plastering attacks against me

You are the most disrespectful editor I have ever come across and your work is an absolute detriment to this encyclopaedia. As a new comer I have been exposed to your bullying tactics and have witnessed the way you treat your fellow editors with censorship and threats of reporting them. I am here simply to collaborate with my fellow colleagues in line with policy but you are here treating the talk page as some sort of forum with your concerns being that of deligitimising or ligitimising of the group. This is not a place for your political advocacy and you do not own wikipedia. I am waiting for an admin to help me deal with your disruptive prescence on ISIL related articles. I have no agenda, but I like to be honest about what I plan to do, to make this a more welcoming and nurturing place, especially for new editors. Mbcap (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please reread my warning. Your reply indicates you did not understand it. Legacypac (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I am not seeing this correctly but I feel bullied. I never knew Wikipedia was such a lonely place where someone can be harassed like this. What pleasure do you get from this? Mbcap (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

To Legacypac: Mbcap is not a newcomer. He is lime disease infested Technophant. He is a DUCK DUCK DUCK as per WP:DUCK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.100.143.104 (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Ibn Taymiyyah

Hi,

I noted that you added quite a lot of material to the Ibn Taymiyyah article recently. Some of this is referenced from the book Imam ibn Taimiya and his projects of reform by Serajul Haque and published by Islamic Foundation Bangladesh. I'm not sure this book can be considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. In WP:SCHOLARSHIP we read that:

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

Islamic Foundation Bangladesh doesn't appear to be a 'well-regarded academic press' and the book doesn't appear to have 'been vetted by the scholarly community'. I feel therefore that references to this book should be removed.

An example of a reliable work on Ibn Taymiyya is Ibn Taymiyya's Theodicy of Perpetual Optimism (Islamic Philosophy, Theology & Science: Texts & Studies) by Prof. Jon Hoover and published by Brill.

What are your thoughts? RookTaker (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

My bad RookTaker, I should have explained first. The book is actually a phd dissertation conducted in 1937 under the supervision of the orientalist Sir Hamilton Gibb[[9]]. It was later on that the aforementioned publishing house decided to print it into book form. I thought due to this, the source was very reliable as the supervisor was also an editor for the Encyclopedia of Islam and was considered an authority on the subject. The author himself, Serajul Haque came to be the Professor Emiratus of Islamic studies at the university in Dhakha. Please let me know if you still think it is unreliable. It is good to know someone is keeping an eye. I will be adding content for the coming days or weeks as I have come across several good sources. I would be grateful if you could keep an eye on the work I put in so that the article is as good as it can be. I am hoping to make this article possibly GA status, if that is at all possible.

Yes the book you mention, I believe is by Jon Hoover. Hopefully I am going to get my hand on it in a few weeks so will be using that also to add content. I also have other sources which I will be using once time allows and they are outlined here in the first section[[10]] Mbcap (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Mbcap:, the source mentioned certainly seems reliable so I have no further questions about its usage. Thanks RookTaker (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Creation–evolution controversy

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Creation–evolution controversy. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Chile world same-sex marriage map

Please join discussion for how Chile should be colored. Prcc27 (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Ibn Taymiyyah article

Hello Mbcap, i saw you extensively editing article about ibn Taimiya. maybe you may interested in movie about ibn Taimiya life in youtube and can give some guideline or add something new to the article. ibensis (What’s the Story?) 15:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello ibensis ; yeh I suspected someone may notice the work on the page. Thank you for letting me know about the youtube video. I have just 2 questions; could you clarify what you mean by: "can give some guideline"? Secondly who made the youtube video and what source's do they use? I suspect it might be based on Al-Dhahabi's treatise on the life of Ibn Taymiyyay but I could be wrong. Mbcap (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for bad english :), i dont know to say it correctly. i mean the movie maybe helpful references to the article. i do not know who is the uploader channel on youtube, it link just pop up in Google. Anyway according to my little searching with google, that movie created by Orientica a French studio production. In the back cover the producer said that the movie has been validity checked by Al-Azhar University Egypt, but i cannot find what book/treatise this movie based exactly. In my humble opinion this movie is accurate enough. ibensis (What’s the Story?) 08:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It is all right ibensis , your English is good. Yes I will try to see the video when time permits. Looking at the article at the moment, do you feel it is so far an accurate protrayal of Ibn Taymiyyah's life. Bear in mind I am only upto when he was 50 years old. I have been using a very good 90 year old thesis I was lucky to find in the university archives, which was supervised by Hamilton Gibb. Other sources I have used extensively are the encyclopedia of Islam, encyclopedia of religion and ethics and Crusades in Muslim eyes chapters on Ibn Taymiyyah. Back to the video, if I find the sources for the video I may be able to use it. Otherwise I am not sure if I would be able to use youtube as a source. I will ask my more senior colleagues here at Wikipedia if that is possible. Lastly if it would not be too much trouble, I would ask you to keep an eye on my work, in case I make any errors. Regards Mbcap (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe there are some points need to added or subtracted from the current article, but the most important is to keep the article informative and not misleading. Now it much better than before. thank for your effort. You are doing good job to improve that article. I myself do not really good knowledge in Ibn Taymiyyahs biography in detail. Your source materials is enough. In adition, ibn Taimiyas article from Britannica quite concise and informative also can be used as a guideline. Thank ibensis (What’s the Story?) 10:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

ibensis the new infobox on the Ibn Taymiyyah page looks impressive. Thank you for the work. Are there any other pictures that could be added? At the moment there is still a lot of content to be added but after it is finished it is hoped that we could get this page to featured status some time in the future. What do you think? Mbcap (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I just spotted the other pictures further down the article. You are a genius, I have been looking for pictures of the citadels in Cairo and Damascus but could not find them. I hope we can work together more often. Mbcap (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It's my pleasure, glad if its help. You're the one who worked hard to improve that article. Well, You will find lot of pictures you need by searching in commons-wiki right?, then you may change the pictures i put if you find one that more suitable to the article. One more important thing now is how to ask to admin to protecting the article from anonymous user edit forever (only registered one allow), since the article protection now out of date. Last, when it reach featured status someday, and if you have free time, may you interested to improving Ibn Qayyim article too. Thank you ibensis (What’s the Story?) 04:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

i have an idea to make the introduction section more simple, if you agree. How about to trim the full name into the Early_years#His_name section . like this. ibensis (What’s the Story?) 10:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

ibensis : Thank you but at the end of the day, it is a team effort. Yes I agree, we can trim the name from the lead. I will create a new section before early years, and call it "Ibn Taymiyyah's name" or something similar. There we can put his full name and also the information about the Taymiyyah part of his name. The table you have made, is impressive and looks very professional. I am not going to put that table into the article, because it is your work so you should put it in. That way it is credited as your work in the page history.

Regarding Ibn Qayyim, yes I will look into it when we are finished with this article. I still have about five or six books and around twenty academic papers on Ibn Taymiyyah which I need to go though so it will be a few months before serious work could start on Ibn Qayyim. In the meantime, you could try to do it if you are able to. If you require sources, let me know and I will try to help. As to the page protection, I am not familiar with what it is. Regards Mbcap (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That's really right, lets focus to finish improving Ibn Taimiya first. My low skill in English is the main barrier for me to doing such major reworking to an article. btw, since you think its alright, i'll put that table to the article, if something not right or no good, please feel free to correct it. regard. ibensis (What’s the Story?) 22:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, i continue our conversation now about Ibn Taimiyya lost work section to the talk page, for broader responses, if any. ibensis (What’s the Story?) 01:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

ibensis I just did some research and it turns out that Ibn Battuta's account of meeting him is contested by different accounts. I will remove the mention of him now. In the future if you see mistakes or if you want to make a correction, please be BOLD and change it. If you are going to say, your English is not good enough then it is not true. Your English is very good. This article will only get better through a team effort. Thank you for spotting the mistake. Mbcap (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

ibensis thanks for creating Ibn Abd al-Hadi. I found out from the Encyclopedia of Qur'an that he was Ibn Taymiyyah's student so linked the article to it. I see that the al-Hadi article has a tag for questionable notability. I hope you are able to save the page. Mbcap (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware that article have been tag for notability. but i am hard to find "reliable" English media except some references that already in article. Even if any mostly only trivial. he is kind of not really popular in mainstream western media, cmiiw. Btw, the Vietcong guy is not worth to waste your time and will try drag you to his level, just ignored him. When he said "youre still a dog and if you are a wahabi then ur not a muslim. ibn taymiyyah was an idiot kufar." actually he is the one who doing takfir. he is lack of respect, behave and full of hate. he speak without a scientific/academical proofs, use private opinions and bad intention. ibensis (What’s the Story?) 07:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh Ibensis I have come across you before promoting a book called wahhabi myth. Vietcong nuturlizer (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

ibensis I see. Do you know that reliable sources do not have to be in English, nor do they have to be online. If you find a reliable source in another language, even if it is in Arabic or Indonesian, that will still do the job. This is stated in WP:GNG. If you still cannot find anything, let me know and I will search through the university library archives. Secondly, I see that you can speak Indonesian. How good is your Indonesian? If you have time, maybe you could build the Ibnu Taimiyah page[11] on the Indonesia wiki using the article we have built here. However, I understand if you are busy. Mbcap (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

i have passion on it, someday i will try to do it, insha Allah, but right now im afraid that i cant promise you anything. ibensis (What’s the Story?) 17:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Name change

Just to let you know, I just changed my name from John Smith the Gamer to Banak. Banak (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Rest in peace John Smith the Gamer. Come forth and prosper Banak. By the way, thank you for the work on the sexual violence and slavery section on the relevant page. Mbcap (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:No-go area

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:No-go area. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya

Thanks for your comment on the Talk page about mutawatir and Sunni Muslim opinion. I will ping the recent editors of the article to look at this. I have just been copy-editing the text into better English and not editing (except when trying to ascertain what was meant by this word), as I know nothing about this subject! I had no idea there were these considerations and thank you for raising them. ~ P-123 (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello P-123, your reply is most appreciated. Yourself and the other editors on the page seem to be doing a good job at improving the article which is why I mentioned the points on the talk page, rather than making edits myself. Since then I have searched through brill online and google scholar and there were not any sources that showed a sunni view of the book or a mention of it being noteworthy by them. I have seen the talk page just now and it is clear that the issue is being dealt with. Thank you for your efforts. Regards Mbcap (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Resolving problems in To the Youth in Europe and North America

Please email me! ~ P-123 (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)