Please stop reverting this page. You'll get yourself blocked and that would just be a pity. Why not work on some other pages and come back to this one tomorrow, when you can ignore the spirit of the place while meeting the letter of the policy again with another three reverts? Happy Christmas or whatever you celebrate, if you celebrate. If not, I wish you happiness anyway. James James 05:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I read it. You're not deleting the duplication. You're removing the whole part from the intro. Besides, the duplication exists to allow her denial of the charge to be included. I think that's fair enough but would you rather we got rid of that bit? James James 05:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't agree. The whole section is not repeated. I'll rewrite the duplicated part. Please don't revert again in any case, because you are already in breach of 3RR. James James 05:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to have read books by Bat Ye'or to know that someone said she was an extremist? Please don't harass me. I gave you a friendly warning about your reverting. I've discussed the article with you and I've tried to rewrite it to fix your problem. James James 05:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
upload log
I have told you innumerable times to properly source images and to not remove no source tags when you don't have a hard source. Saying public domain or fair use is not enough. Also use teh template. This is your final warning on the matter. Please don't, it's silly to for simple issues like this. If you found it online link to where you found it. If you found it in a book give all of the proper citation information of the book. Also give your rationale for why you're adding the license you are. Thank you and I hope you listen to me this time. grenグレン 04:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1940s is not necessarily public domain. I don't know if it is or isn't but you have to give your source and show why it is public domain. Reference what law makes it so. I'm not trying to be difficult this is how you must do things. grenグレン 07:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for linking to the sources. That is what is necessary to say it's sourced: a hyperlink or a citation if it's printed work. Please review Wikipedia:Image copyright tags however for what copyright tags you need to add. Writing fair use in text doesn't categorize it or do what is necessary. Also, I added "no license" for the image you created now that you have said you created it from scratch. (If you used a template of any sort you must cite it). Use that page to show which license you are releasing your work under. Since you created it you should use a free license like GFDL, public domain, or Creatice Commons. Thanks. grenグレン 11:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Image talk:Tantrika.jpg your version was not a full cover as the Amazon site shows. Please for the love of God man... don't be misleading. Template:book cover doesn't say partial book cover... it says book cover. Upload the full cover or use the other version.
You're also going to have to explain your wholesale removal of (book) from titles at some point. grenグレン 19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If, as it appears, your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to spread Islamophobic or anti-Arab bigotry, then please go and do it somewhere else instead. Palmiro | Talk 02:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I invite any reader of your user page to view your edits and judge whether my remarks are unfair or not. Palmiro | Talk 02:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you can show me where I've promoted prejudice against any national or religious group, then I'll withdraw my comments to you wholeheartedly. Palmiro | Talk 03:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking you to leave and of course I don't have any right or authority to do so. I'm asking you to stop trying to spread bigotry ("Islamic gang rapes" being a good example). I strongly believe in freedom of expression myself; that doesn't mean that I think that sort of thing helps make a good encyclopedia. Palmiro | Talk 03:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I reverted your replacing the image on that page because it's copyrighted. Unfortunately, we can't use that particular image on a Wikipedia article under the fair use provision of United States copyright law. The image itself will need to be deleted at some point, but this will be handled in the normal manner.
If you can find a free image of the subject of the article, or a copyrighted photograph of her, which we may be able to use under fair use, please upload that, tag it appropriately (providing source information and a fair use rationale) and add it to the article.
Otherwise, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! Rob ChurchTalk 03:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On Image:Sohanne.jpeg and Image:Sohane.jpeg you put PD... you did better after I warned you but you're doing it again... give a source and don't claim public domain without any rationale. You're really abusing the uploading system... you need to respect copyrights here. Unless you scanned the book covers you must give a source. Use the copyright tags as well. I've warned you a bunch... and someday the warnings will end. You have been doing a better job on a bunch of what you have uploaded... and that's why I'm not doing anything now... but we've been over this a bunch man. Okay?
Give a source, whether it be a URL or how you took it yourself and from what source.
Give a copyright tag from the page I pasted above and give rationale if it's fair use.
Please... just do it... if you have a question ask me... if you aren't sure... don't upload. grenグレン 10:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Book covers need a source when they are newly uploaded. We are being more lenient on book covers from the past (and even new ones) because they are so easy to find all over the internet and no scanner is going to attempt legal action... only the source would if it's not fair use. Still, as far as I understand you should be citing your source because you have gotten it from somewhere and some admins have been deleting book covers with no source. If you look at image of yours I've added no source to it's very few book covers. The Sohanne images were the biggest problem because you added public domain without a source or rationale and that's what you need to stop now. So, please do the book covers because is is the proper way to do it... but you don't need to go back to your old ones. You also started using copyright tags... but only for some.... continue using them for all. But you have to do it... we're trying to get serious about this and that's why the no source tags have been created -- they are recent creations. grenグレン 19:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear CltFn: I have had very tough time dealing with some users in Wikipedia. I am talking about some Muslim users. There is basically nothing that I write that they will not revert. Their justifications are inane and invalid. It is very clear that these friends are motivated by their religious conviction. I have noticed that it is not just me but many other contributors to Wikipedia have difficulty dealing with some Muslim users who mix their religious fervor with their scholarly commitment to Wikipedia and basically use this venue for character assassination of the critics of Islam and to promote misinformation about Islam. Censorship is very much rampant and the rules of Wikipedia are often broken and twisted to justify their agenda. They gang up together and engage in revert war until their opponents who don’t have “pals” in Wikipedia to gang up with, give up. I joined a couple of months ago and after a while I was just fed up and left. I came back to face the same hostile attitude. I don’t want to give up and I can’t continue in this way either. I am thinking to bring this problem to the attention of all the users of Wikipedia so those who have had to face similar abuses also come forth and speak out. Being relatively new, I don’t know how to go about it. But I think a good discussion on this subject is necessary and healthy. Maybe even an article talking about the pressure used by some Muslims in Wikipedia against the opponents of Islam would be a good idea. What do you suggest? Can you tell me how to go about it? Thank you for your time. user:OceanSplash 12 Ded. 2005 21:04
There is no questions that some editors do indeed play unfair by resorting to all sorts of devious tactics. Do not despair , you are certainly not the first editor to encounter the tactics that you mention. And there are many impartial and smart editors and admins in wikipedia that can all help make some progress in the resolution of disputes. Also if you follow the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines to the letter you can usually get your inserts to hold and you can insist that they do by having wikipedia to back you up, of course there are always the vandals... Based on what you say though, you ought to read any of these books to get a deeper understanding of the nature of the beast and what you are up against. --CltFn 02:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem in dealing with Muslims is that they gang up and back up each other while others usually work alone. We are not committed to an ideology and do not have cultist mentality, so I often find myself alone facing a dedicated group of people with pack mentality and militant attitude. It is obvious that there is more to this than mere differences of opinions. We can’t fool ourselves forever trying to be PC. These people definitely have a mission and that mission. The funny thing is that as soon as mention this they play the victim game and accuse you of being prejudiced. This is like wolves in a flock of seep devouring the seep and if someone says wolves are carnivores, they protest saying you are prejudiced. Thanks you for the list of the books. You did a great job putting that list together. Yes I know the nature of the beast we are dealing with. The problem is that many don’t. I noticed that there are many people, who have had difficult time with Islamist editors of Wikipedia. Even when they pretend to be not religious the Islam is still alive in them. Remember that Muhammad Ata was not religious. Also read about Al- Ayad He was not religious, but he stabbed to death his Jewish friend.
My hope is to bring this problem into a public debate. It is foolish to say Islam has nothing to do with it. Then why is it that it is only Muslims who are causing problem? Are we supposed to believe all non-Muslims are unfair and stupid and only the Muslim Wikepedians know how to be fair and abide by the rules? Why is it that every time I am censored it turns out to be a Muslim doing it? Take note how my contribution is being treated in Ali Sina article. I am now facing four Muslims like a wall. One steps down the other is immediately behind him to step in and mount the resistance. Why is it that they happen to be all Muslims?
This problem must be discussed in open. Let us open this can of worms and see what comes out of it. Let them come forth and justify their action and let us see if it is me who is in breach of Wikipedia rules of if it is them. Let us drop this game playing of victimization. They are no victims. They are the ones who victimize others. Why is it that most of the problems in Wikepedia are caused by Muslims? Can we really pretend that Islam has nothing to do with it? Is it Islamophobia to say all these terrorist acts are caused by Muslims? http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Is there a way to talk about this in public so other victims of this abuse also get to talk? I am not talking about a closed door committee. I am hoping to bring this discussion into public so everyone can take part. Thanks again for reading. user:OceanSplash 13 Dec. 2005 04:54
On a cheerful note , most wikipedian editors that I have seen in Wikipedia that start out as pretty partisan gradually seem to develop more critical thinking which in my book is not a bad thing. And who knows where a little critical thinking will lead them? Surely to a better place than their prior folly--CltFn 05:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
If you really think that will happen to Muslims, I think you should read those books again. As long as Muslims remain Muslims, there is no hope that they become critical thinkers. Militancy is part of Islam. Take the example of Ali Sina’s article. This page is written with poor English; it is repetitive and even the language is vindictive. The changes that you made were only structural and not in the content. Why they can’t accept even that? They say "we came to a consensus". Consensus among whom? Among Muslim only? That is not a consensus. It is confabulation.
So you don’t know if there is a way to bring this subject to the attention of all the users and make it a public debate? This is what interests me most. I think if we get a public debate on this, it will clarify a lot of things. user:OceanSplash 13 Dec. 2005 05:51
I don’t know where you get your optimism CltFn. It seems to me Wikipedia is invaded by Islamists. Fayssal a.k.a. Svend, removed your contribution and an administrator showed up immediatgely and with a very authoritative tone ORDERED everyone to STOP, and while pretending to be impartial completely took the Muslims’ side. The person is Grenavitar. Upon clicking on his/her name I found out that s/he is also an Islamist. So where are those impartial editors you were talking about? These Muslims seem to work in pack. This means they will overpower their oponents everytime. This does not seem promissing.I believe this matter should be discussed at large.OceanSplash 13 Dec. 2005 09:37
Why did you re-add the image to Sohane Benziane? It's a beautiful image, but it has no source, which means that it's inevitably going to be deleted unless you add one. Asserting that it's public domain without any evidence is not good enough. Ambi 23:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, the devil is in the detail. The template you pointed to me to says that fair use applies when the image is used for identification and critical commentary on the television programme. This image isn't being used to illustrate a feature of the program - it's being used to illustrate an article on Benziane. While I know this is a nuisance (particularly a shame to lose that first photo of the mourners), I'm afraid it's still copyright infringement. Ambi 07:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. It's still not legal, I'm afraid. Screenshot fair use is limited. It allows us, to, say, take a screenshot of The Sims to illustrate the article The Sims. Or a screenshot of the BBC News website to add to BBC News. It does not, however, allow us to screenshot a copyrighted photo on a news site on whatever we like and use it for our own purposes. Finally, please stop pronouncing that something is 100% legal when unfortunately you seem to have no clue whether it is or isn't. Whacking the screenshot tag on a screenshot is not enough, and without a satisfactory explanation of why that particular image is fair use in the particular article it's being used in (which this one is patently not at all), it is grounds to be promptly deleted. Don't get me wrong - I like the image, and wish we could use it in an article, but it's blatantly against the law in this case. Ambi 23:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to consult with anyone else on this issue; the answer, as with that from Robchurch above, will be the same. Please understand that I'm not trying to prevent the article from having an image (I still wish the one that was in there originally could stand), but simply letting you know that this really isn't legal. We'd both rather that it was, but fair use is a very limited exemption that simply doesn't occur because you slap a tag on it and say "I said it is so it is". To be frank, you don't understand fair use at all. You can feel free to get a second, third, or tenth opinion, but they'll just say the same thing. Ambi 23:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(To avoid a smear campaign by AE, I have to point out that I'm writing you because you where in the past involved with this user, and AE has in his last RFA many many times campaigned at other users (also to those users who voted oppose), and that he gathered opposition at Babajobu's fist RFA). --Kefalonia 13:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not accuse me of being a sockpuppet, when I revert your highly subjective changes to Oriana Fallaci. Cyberevil 17:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to discuss what changes I mean, as it has been outlined to you before Cyberevil 17:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave you to your indignation. Cyberevil 17:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
hey this is an encyclopedia, so don't remove facts just because you do not like them. In case you have trouble verifying the fact that asra nomani gave birth to a bastard, please check this out:
I would have to say that this image is not covered by fair use. The mere fact of an image being a screenshot does not make it fair use - otherwise anyone could take any image found on the internet and capture it as a screenshot and claim fair use. Those screenshots that are considered fair use are those that capture a single moment in progression of motion (e.g. a single screen from a video game in progress), much like screenshots from a movie or TV show. BD2412T 17:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As has been explained in detail on the talk page and in edit summaries, and in hidden comments you kept deleting from the text, some of the contentions you keep trying to reinsert are simply wrong. Try and collaborate with other editors to produce an accurate article rather than reverting to your favourite version even after it's been proven to include falsehoods. Palmiro | Talk 01:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
eh... that there's every reason to believe that it's not true? Palmiro | Talk 02:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a personal attack between wikipedians. We are free to share, although reccomended against, our opinions on the subjects of articles, so long as we don't let it compromise our judgement. Civility is how we treat our fellow wikipedians. Thats where the line is drawn, good or ill. --Tznkai 05:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no right to free speech on Wikipedia. We demand you remain civil.--Tznkai 06:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yuber's version is apologetic, and off-center. It's just that his version is LESS off-center than yours.
POV isn't just a matter of listing factoids, it's a matter of what factoids you list ... as well as the language you use to describe them. I'm not sure that Yuber's "right-wing" should stand, since many people consider that a pejorative -- but your "counter-terrorism analysts" is much worse, since it invests Pipes et al. with a bogus aura of expertise. They are just people with opinions! Their opinions aren't necessarily worth any more than Juan Cole's opinions, or Muqtedar Khan's.
I've committed to too many articles on WP, my house is stacked with unread books, and I just haven't had time to get back to that article. When I have time, I'll see what I can do to balance it. Zora 21:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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}}.
Please signify the copyright information 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. Thank you.Rossrs 13:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey... I don’t know if you have any interest in this subject anymore, but there is yet another attempt to bury the Islamofascism page elsewhere. If you’re interested, the debate is here: [[1]]
IronDuke 19:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Readers who like to keep an eye on such things should watch out for media appearances by any of the following Benador "experts": AM Rosenthal, Alexander M Haig Jr, Amir Taheri, Arnaud de Borchgrave, Azar Nafisi, Barry Rubin, Charles Jacobs, Charles Krauthammer, Fereydoun Hoveyda, Frank J Gaffney Jr, George Jonas, Hillel Fradkin, Ismail Cem, John Eibner, Kanan Makiya, Khalid Duran, Khidhir Hamza, Laurie Mylroie, Mansoor Ijaz, Martin Kramer, Max Boot, Meyrav Wurmser, Michael A Ledeen, Michael Rubin, Michel Gurfinkiel, Paul Marshall, R James Woolsey, Richard O Spertzel, Richard Perle, Richard Pipes, Ruth Wedgwood, Shaykh Kabbani, Stanley H Kaplan, Tashbih Sayyed, Tom Rose and Walid Phares.--Joe Dynue
You were doing a good job with sourcing them... but, you have some book covers that you didn't source... they aren't as big of a deal... so despite my last warning those are fine... but really, please try to cite sources even on book covers. It is policy. Thanks for doing a better job on most of your new images though. grenグレン? 17:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have noticed that you are interested in articles relating to Islam in general and Bat Ye'or in particular. There is now a heated dispute regarding Dhimmi article, and the page is already protected. Much of the dispute concerns admissibility of Bat Ye'or as a source for some recent edits. I would much appreciate if you could provide an independent view on the matter. Regards, Pecher 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, use the edit summary to just summarize your edit. I'm asking that all of us refrain from using it for anything else. I think this might be one of those small things that can make editing go more smoothly for all of us. Thanks, Tom HarrisonTalk 20:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
please use the talk page for discussion.--Urthogie 21:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read and reply at Talk:Christoph Luxenberg. The book is not yet published in English. Therefore, its English name is just an unofficial translation: the actual German tite should not go in brackets after it, but the other way around. Your edit includes a number of phrases that unadvisedly support Luxenberg without giving clear reason and are anti-Islamic, for example "The book also disproves widely held myths held about the inception of Islam". I was glad that you removed 'irrefutable' from your text, as it too is just plain wrong. Also, there is no real evidence that Luxenberg has 'to maintain tight security' (whatever that means), he has simply remained annonymous. I find your bantering of me in edit summaries distateful. I find it vitally important that Luxenberg's work be discussed as an academic work on the language of the Qur'an and not a 'this disproves Islam' book. The latter stance is seen in some of the popular articles that have been written about the book, I feel it is important that this article discusses the academic methods that Luxenberg uses, rather than just a partial statement of his conclusions. --Gareth Hughes 18:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't appreciate your insulting edit commentary on your last revert of this article. You wrote cut it you and at least have the decency to not pretend to be someone else than you really are on your page. First of all, I have decided to use my user page to say who I am, so that other editors might know who I am. You will also see that it says I speak both Arabic and Aramaic that are relevant to this article. On the other hand, you have decided not to say who you are. That is completely up to you, but it is inappropriate to attack me over the information I choose to reveal from your point of annonymity. I have written on the talk page why I believe that your version is unacceptable. You have failed to qualify your changes on the talk page at all. You simply reverted to your version without any discussion earlier today. I reverted it for this reason, and said so on the talk page. You have just gone and reverted again without talk. I expect you to discuss all future changes. — Gareth Hughes 17:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check my edit history - I got rid of phrases "holy Qur'an" and "prophet Muhammed", for example...and even I don't see that your most recent edits to "Islam" were NPOV, or all that helpful. Why not instead start an "Islamism" section, or "Criticism of Islam", or someplace where your comments would seem more natural and defensable? The goal, after all, is to have it stick.
Let's put it this way: suppose I basically agreed with you, would it benefit anyone to say so?
It's obvious that fanatics are using wiki to propagandize - what's new? - but I think the best way to counter them is to challenge their POV, and to add facts which suggest a fairer interpretation. Check out this gem:
Don't know if you're familiar with these events, but I'm sure you can see how ridiculous this pious retelling is. I put the disputed tag on it, but haven't had time to get the research together to fix it.
You may already know this, but this is the fellow Abu Bakr sent to force tribes which had pulled back after Muhammad's death back into the Caliphate, most specifically to pay zakat. Shia consider al-Walid (like Abu Bakr) a bad actor, and I tend to agree.
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}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.
Unlike you (so far as I can tell from your editing on Wikipedia), I am not interested in promoting hatred. Quite the opposite, I believe in promoting tolerance and mutual understanding through the rigorous and objective pursuit of knowledge and self-criticism. So I am somewhat at a loss to understand why you think I should be burning embassies. Palmiro | Talk 17:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in a new category for Wikipedians that I've just created. It's unusual & you may find it questionable. If so, feel free to ask me about it here & I'll try to explain my motives more clearly. Please have a look at it's description at Category:Wikipedians_censored_by_Islamist_editors. The category is for Wikipedians who feel that they have been censored/bullied by Islamists on Wikipedia regarding valid/fair/worthy additions to articles. This is NOT a political category.
To add yourself to this category, simply copy & paste this to your user page;
[[Category:Wikipedians_censored_by_Islamist_editors|YOUR USER NAME]]
remembering to insert your own username instead of "YOUR USER NAME". Veej 00:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, you're not alone. it looks like it'll be deleted anyway. Veej 04:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I put the tag {{source}} in various places in Reading Lolita in Tehran, inviting you or anyone else to specify sources, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. You have removed these. Why?
Please reply either here (I'll be watching) or on the article's discussion page. Thank you. -- Hoary 00:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Muslims explictly claim Abraham as the founder. He is said to have built the Kaaba. Muhammad claimed to restoring the original faith, which had been corrupted by Judaism and Christianity.
Jews accept the Torah. Christians accept the Torah and the Gospels. Muslims accept the Torah, Gospels, and Qur'an. In every case, it starts with Abraham. Heck, when I was raised as a Christian, the Sunday school stressed Abraham. That's why it's common to refer to all three faiths as Abrahamic (as being more inclusive than saying Judeo-Christian tradition).
Oh, as as for the Luxenburg article -- do you read German? Have you read the book in the original? If you have, then you can cite the relevant passages in German and then give an English translation. Until you do, it seems safer to hew to what is accepted by all contemporary scholars and is probably accepted by Luxenburg too. Though he's propounding some revolutionary stuff, it's unlikely that he would deny the existence of inscriptions that have been well-documented (photographs, publications). Change of name to the more commonly known form isn't a contentious matter either. I don't think Luxenburg would disagree with that. Zora 05:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
002.125
PICKTHAL: And when We made the House (at Makka) a resort for mankind and sanctuary, (saying): Take as your place of worship the place where Abraham stood (to pray). And We imposed a duty upon Abraham and Ishmael, (saying): Purify My house for those who go around and those who meditate therein and those who bow down and prostrate themselves (in worship).
So you're basing those cites in the Luxenburg article on a journalistic interview? I'll have to check. I think you must have misunderstood. Zora 05:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Communication, and transparency in reversion[edit]
Your most recent edit to Reading Lolita in Tehran was a simple reversion, as can be seen in this diff. However, your edit summary did not make this clear.
If you're reverting an article, at least make this fact clear.
Your opponent in this long-running and tiresome edit war is not providing sources in the article, as he/she should. But at least he/she is moving in that direction, specifying sources in the talk page. Do you have any interest in either (a) anything that might disagree with what's written in the book or that you already believe, or in (b) persuading those who disagree with you that they are in some way mistaken?
As it is, this article is heading toward intervention by an admin, and at least one of the parties fighting over it is heading toward censure. Apart from the general unpleasantness, this would be a huge waste of time. -- Hoary 02:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... these responses appear to be those of someone with a proverbial axe to grind. Frankly, each person's documented objection to your addition to the entry appears to pertain solely to the purported factual correctness of the cited source. Perhaps, assuming the information is factual to begin with, a different source than the one cited could be also cited in order to lend strength to the assertion of factual correctness and detract from the allegations of faulty/biased sourcing. Having said that, I would like to refer to the following templates:
Please stop deliberately introducing incorrect information into articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
--
Please try and keep a cool head, despite comments people may make against you. Personal attacks and disruptive comments will only escalate a situation; please keep calm and action can be taken against the other parties if necessary. Your involvement in attacking back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors, and lead to general bad feeling. Please try and be civil. Thanks! (CJ)
Thanks , but the underlying problem is that I am inserting material which is highly objectionable by Khomeini's fan base, a fact that I am fully aware of. I do expect the backlash as a matter of course. --CltFn 06:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
CltFn, be serious. I have reviewed the material you have inserted. I find the term Khomeini's fan base objectionable in itself, given that the highly objectionable material that has been introduced is highly objectionable in its own light when introduced without verification. Does every single fact need multiple verification? Certainly not. But the material you are introducing is both inflammatory and potentially false, so the bar is raised, as it were. As at least one user has noted, the neutrality of the source you have cited is at best subject to question, and so far no additional source has been cited to verify the authenticity of the content you have added as legitimately attributable to the object of the article.
I hope I am getting through to you with these words. If you are truly interested in contributing to encyclopedic content, perhaps it behooves one to make certain that the source(s) of the information thus far highly disputed - by those both knowledgeable of and interested in the subject matter - to be unimpeachable in their credibility.
Here's a f'rinstance - Adolf Hitler was an evil evil man. On this there is little dispute. BUT - Did Adolf Hitler ever write a Tijuana Bible or pull a Michael Jackson? The world may never know. But if someone stated it on a website devoted to piling fictional wrongs on top of all the perfectly factual QUITE BAD ENOUGH wrongs, would it be OK to tack that onto an encyclopedic entry for Adolf Hitler just because Hey, who but a such-and-so would ever dispute ANYTHING bad said about Adolf Hitler!??
The answer, of course, is NO. And to suggest that those who object to the addition of potentially non-factual information to an encyclopedic entry for a controversial individual ... are "pro"-that individual BECAUSE of their objection ... is perhaps something for which I would be considered incivil to describe on its face.
In summary, and to (finally) get to the point, I agree with Chick Bowen - either you or SouthernComfort (ideally both) ought to consider putting in a Request for Mediation to (hopefully) settle this issue. Longshot14 07:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know I'm watching that page and you are one reversion away from 3RR. You're not acting in the best of faith by editwarring, especially since the disputed book in question now has a seperate article. --kingboyk 06:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking sides, it's just that as an established user you should know better. Edit warring is bad, and going over 3RR can result in a block - I'm actually being kind by letting you know that the page is being watched, I'm sure a ban out of blue wouldn't be welcome? :) The book itself is currently up for AFD (deletion vote) so why not wait and see what that result of that debate is before getting into too much conflict? If the article on the book is kept you have a much stronger case for using it a source, at the moment it's POV vs POV. Furthermore, as I said before the article about the book is probably a better place for that material, given that it's disputed. I'm off to bed soon, so you won't have me to worry about - just be careful OK? :) --kingboyk 06:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're not at 3RR I was just letting you know in case you were tempted to go over it. Goodnight (I hope). --kingboyk 06:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Tahrirolvasyleh.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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 media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. grenグレン 15:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is more than a book cover. It's a picture of a book and is not necessarily fair use... maybe... but, you need to give a source. I have told you to give sources for even book covers and you still don't. If you keep that up some day you will be blocked. In any case... can you find any more information about that book? If it can be verifiably said to exist by an academic source then it will be kept... simple as that... but right now all you cite is a Greek Nationalist site... which isn't too impressive.
Do not remove those tags from the images unless you are added a direct source. If you remove saying "This is a book cover" you will be blocked because it is imperative to know how they were gotten. Saying that it's a screenshot isn't enough either because we need to know what the source is so that doesn't work. They are all different sizes so you obviously didn't scan the book covers. I tried to let you do these things properly but you have refused. So now put all of those sources or they're gone in 7 days. grenグレン 15:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to google image search is unacceptable. I have told you to source your images for a while now and with your latest bit of not doing it now you will source them or they will be deleted. Don't link to google images find the exact version or upload a new version tell me so I can delete the old. Thank you. grenグレン 06:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia respects Iranian copyrights, even if it is not required by US law. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. For this reason, it is not valid to claim that an image is PD simply because you believe it is of Iranian origin. Also, you haven't provided any source information for Image:Khmeinichild.jpg. Two editors have expressed doubt that it is actually Khomeini in the photograph, and it has the look and feel of a wire service photograph, which would be copyrighted. For these reasons it will be deleted unless you prove that the author has released it freely. Rhobite 05:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont' remove it without the source and a copyright tag. Thanks. grenグレン 03:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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}}.
Please signify the copyright information 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. Thank you. Dethomas 02:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Scaife(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 12:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
SEE WP:NPA[reply]
Do you call it nonsense because it does not fit with your revisionist spin?.--CltFn 13:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block [2] is 24 hours William M. Connolley 15:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say hi, and remind you to please stay calm, don`t get involved in incivil exchanges, since I noticed people were coming at you a couple of times, and be careful about the 3rr violations. I noticed you made some great edits, so I don`t want to see you in trouble.Zmmz 23:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 48 hours. William M. Connolley 13:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to assert that Muhammad had a different name, you'd better give a reference. I've NEVER seen that name. Zora 03:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.
I've added some new information about Khomeini's views on non-Muslims, but people keep changing the section and claiming the information is not true. I've lived in Iran for most of my life and the view that non-Muslims are najis is widely believed to be true (by religious people of course). I knew this would happen, so I made sure to find a very credible source. Could you make sure they don't try to mess around with the sectioning and stuff? AucamanTalk 03:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. You also might want to get more help because we're going up agianst more than just one person. AucamanTalk 03:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The source I provided is by Bernard Lewis and he's just translating what Khomeini has said in his book. The verified tag they put in, together with the neutrality tag, has not been justfied. I don't even know what they want. AucamanTalk 04:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at that article's history page, a particular user says that "Arabian Gulf" is an alternative of Persian Gulf in English language. --ManiF 04:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've noticed that you are keen to have the statement added to the introduction of the Quran page. Kindly refer to the 'Regarding the Statement in the Intro' section in the article's talk page and you are welcome to express your views over there. Thank you. --Jibran1 01:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are advancing old (2002 and 2003) articles from the popular press in support of your claim that Christoph Luxenberg's position is widely accepted in the academic community. If you look at the WP article on Luxenberg -- on which you and I clashed previously, as I recall -- you'll find links to several reviews, by academics, complaining that Luxenberg's position is highly speculative and partisan.
The popular press is not a good guide to academia. Zora 04:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CltFn, you simply cannot ignore copyright law because you feel like it. This is not the first time you've carried on as if you knew something about copyright when you frankly have no clue. Text does not pass into the public domain (or become freely licensed) because it does not have a copyright symbol - it only does so (with recent texts such as this) where the person themselves deliberately releases it. You've provided absolutely no evidence of this at Irshad Manji, so please do not re-add the copyrighted text. Ambi 05:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV means taking all sides of an issue into consideration, no matter how accurate you see one side to be. Let me give you a good example of this - check out the Adana massacre page. It gives both the Armenian and the Turkish side. We may not see one side as the "truth", but that's not what NPOV is about, it's about neutrality. Calling the events of the Armenian Genocide "massacres" is POV. I really hope you understand what I'm saying. —Khoikhoi 04:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the Armenian side. NPOV means including all sides. —Khoikhoi 04:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the List of Islamic Jihads article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! cmh 04:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These two articles should be one. Do not recreate an article on another name because someone put copyvio on the other one. Maybe you forgot, I'm not sure of the reason... but do not do that again. I don't know about the copyright violation tag issue... but deal with it and don't fork. If the page goes back to its original form then comment on my NPOV issues. Thanks and please be more careful so yo don't recreate pages like that. grenグレン 05:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my problem... you did take it from the "history of jihad" site, right? I mean, the text is verbatim... and he does quote the copyright policy here which says you can't just have the text without commentary. I am not sure if it is fair use and personally, I would probably have ignored it as long as it was cited... but, the thing is... I'm not sure that that user is wrong... he may very well be right that it is a copyvio. I just don't know about that so I can't remove it. I do know that you can't create another article of the same content... you may want to ask around with some of the bigger names on Wikipedia... or, talk at the copyvio area... they may be able to tell you what you need to do. Sorry I can't be of much help on that issue. grenグレン 20:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't license this image under the GFDL. I think you want {{PD-old}} or something because if I am not mistaken it's two dimensional art (granted the picture isn't a pure 2D scan since it's a picture from a few feet away... but I'd say it works)from more than 100 years go. It can't be GFDL because that would be you re-licensing the work... which I don't think is legal. So, will you change it? Thanks. grenグレン 05:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit, you deleted some material, but in so doing, turned the sentence in which it was found into a fragment. Please be careful to re-read a sentence from which you remove words for grammaticality before saving. Thanks. --TreyHarris 17:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For a variety of reasons discussed at length on the talk page, I editted:
"Muslims believe that the Qur'ān is the literal word of God (Arabic Allah) and the culmination of God's revelation to mankind as revealed to Muhammad, the final prophet of humanity, over a period of twenty-three years through the angel Jibril (Gabriel)."
to:
Muslims believe that the Qur'ān is the literal word of God (Arabic Allah) as revealed to Muhammad over a period of twenty-three years through the angel Gabriel (Jibril)."
I'm about to post on talk asking that AE explain his repeated removal of sourced material. Done.
Hope I've not bothered you.Timothy Usher 07:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to remind you it's not really acceptable to add "rv mohamamedian vandalism" as an edit summary. You know that... so, let's act on it now. Be polite, it can take you places. grenグレン 07:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This (replacing all occurences of the word "Islamic" with the word "Middle-Eastern" including in the name of one of the references cited is just a plain violation of WP:POINT. —Ruud 13:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After an extended tussle at Richard Nelson Frye over un-sourced (and probably made-up) quotes, I am leary of quotes now.
I don't mind having them there at all. He's a brilliant writer and incidentally, a rilly rilly cute guy. Says this 58-year-old DOL (Dirty Old Lady). Zora 12:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits have mangled the article. Please, if you're going to pontificate about scholarship re Islam, READ some of it. Zora 22:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article was structured so that there were three groups of Western scholars: traditionalists, extreme skeptics, and what you might call "neo-traditionalism". You moved all the scholars into one category and put the text that went with "extreme skeptics" on top, thereby enrolling all the scholars into skepticism. This is just plain WRONG, and I don't think you could have done it if you had read the scholars in question. I haven't read all of them, by any means, but I've read a sampling from each category.
I think it was you who put Reza Aslan into the "bridging the divide" category, but he doesn't qualify. He has no traditional Islamic training. He may be Persian, but his training is exclusively American academic.
You're not going to shake any Muslims' faith (if that's your purpose) if your edits are not scrupulously fair, neutral, and accurate. Zora 22:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have Reza Aslan's book and I've read it. Yes, he cites Islamic sources, but that is NOT the same thing as a traditional Islamic clerical education as pursued at places like Al-Azhar or Qom. Islamic clerics operate in a completely different academic and intellectual context. Reza Aslan will not impress them because he doesn't have THEIR credentials -- just as Islamic credentials (mastery of a medieval curriculum) will not impress Western academics.
More later. I have a visitor coming. Zora 23:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Historiography is the study of historians, not of history. You mean historian of early Islam. Please correct this! Zora 17:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CltFn, I'm not published, but I have done history as an academic. Put in my time in dusty archives and read widely. You are using the word incorrectly. Zora 17:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Historiography is the study of the writing of history. It is a META-subject. History is the study of events. When historians reflect on what they do, they are functioning as historiographers; when they do what they do, they are historians. It is like the difference between history of science/philosopy of science, and science. Being a historian, or a scientist, doesn't necessarily make you a good meta-historian or meta-scientist. Zora 17:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked for 24 hours because of recreating the deleted List of Islamic Jihads. Many times you have been told it was a copyvio without explanation and you recreated it without even citing the source let alone making the changes necessary to make the list fair use (which would involve more than just copying and pasting). This is disruption and obviously trying to get around the system. I've told you many times your copyright issues were one step away from getting you a short block and well, here goes. Do not do something like that again. grenグレン 11:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please don't remove context / cleanup / etc. tags without some explanation in the edit summary or on the talk page. Thanks. grenグレン 11:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CltFn, the content was still basically the same list pasted from the same site without even a reference provided... it is the same thing. You have every right to create that article, but not how you've been doing it. Compile lists of wars by Muslims that are called "Jihads" by some reputable and scholarly sites. For instance if an article in the Journal of Islam in America refers to the Battle of Badr as a Jihad then add it to the list and use the reference tag to cite it. You cannot just paste a complete list of someone else's terminology with no commentary and claim fair use. Re-pasting that list like you've been doing is a copyright violation. You can link it as an external link but you can't copy and paste its terminology. Also note that it is not a scholarly site and doesn't express why it calls an incident a jihad or who declared the incident a jihad. You will note that who declares an incident to be a jihad and who accepts that declaration are very important issues. Did the Abbassids accept the breakaway Ummayad's conquest of Iberia as a jihad? Did the Muslim world accept Saddam's claim that the Iran-Iraq war was a jihad? Likely not but Saddam still did declar it to be a jihad which makes it notable for that list. This is why the list wasn't neutral and we will debate all of those elements... that is no problem... I would not single-handedly delete the list or block you for that. But you are completely ignoring the copyright issues. If you do the research yourself and cite a plethora of sources that can be debated over merit but not copyright. The fact that the list was copied and you were warned is the issue. Not the list itself. So make the list... but do not copy it like that since you have been warned. That is why I blocked you... does that sound good? If you can arrange a list like that I can try to help. Just... what you had repasted may have been modified in some way... but it was virtually a copy with no critical commentary. Which = copyvio. Thanks grenグレン 11:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you do re-create it with non-copied content here's a recommendation. Make it List of jihads. Jihad as far as I know is a term only used by Islamic and there's no reason to capitalize it. At the top of the list we will obviously need to clarify that they are military (or... cite examples of non-military en masse jihads) since personal versions of jihad would be rather difficult to add to the list. grenグレン 11:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're now well aware of the rules of Wikipedia, and you certainly use them to your advantage while running your campaign against Muslims on this website. The article, in its current form, gives undue attention to minority groups that have little or no influence within the Muslim community of the U.S., e.g. ITS. BhaiSaabtalk 05:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't stated anything that isn't obvious if anyone were to take a cursory glance over your edits. I'll make changes to the article as I see fit, and you're, of course, free to change them as you please. BhaiSaabtalk 05:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about it, didn't mean to revert your edit. It was by accident. I meant to revert another page which was vandalised when I was doing vandal fighting. --Terence Ong 04:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit to Christoph Luxenberg was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 12:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had been editing Bhai's version and... you had reverted and I made the change without looking... in any case... can you look at the talk page and to my changes and see if you think they are more acceptable? Thanks. grenグレン 05:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The last time you inserted it, Anonymous Editor removed it saying "can you provide a correct source, like a link to a book or a scholar website"? Can you do that? BhaiSaabtalk 03:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a comment about this too. Firstly, source it and source it well (because it is controversial). Secondly, it's not a stated fact that it arose at the end of the seventh century. The thing is that revisionist (used in a non-pejorative way) scholars believe that there is no evidence for the use of the word Muslim from before the late 600s and they do not trust Muslim sources that claim it was used during the time of the prophet because they do not find any corroborating evidence. The thing is, other scholars have questioned why they don't trust the Muslim sources... and think it's a strong claim. I am not well versed on this controversy but I know enough to relaize it's not established fact. So, it's not helpful when you portray it as such. Please try to respect the scholarship and don't just oversimplify it. Even the scholars would tell you it's not that cut and dry and that there are reasons for why they believe the word came to be then not just that we should accept that as a fact without the reasoning. You've stated before that you don't like Islam and that's no crime... but when you oversimplify these things they come off as attacks and not attempts to represent scholarship. And the scholarship is incredibly interesting and diverse and it deserves to be well-represented. Let's work together to do that. grenグレン 04:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412T 23:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's NPOV rules and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 04:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't care if it's properly sourced, the way you worded it is biased against liberals. Please reword your edit before including it again.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 04:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop re-inserting POV material. Please reword it. If you add the material again in it's original, biased state, I will reportyou.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 04:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 12:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
SEE WP:NPA
Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 06:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
