Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:33, 19 November 2006

Archives

1

User:Ibrahimfaisal/commons

Thanks

Thanks very much Ibrahim for letting me know. --Aminz 18:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Your request

Hi, out of respect for your wishes, I have removed a section from my user page. I understand that doing so may help to fascilitate discussion between yourselves. I do believe however, that the effect of the remarks goes far beyond any insult to you. Remarks of that sort, in my opinion, tend to degrade the quality of debate. I would like to resolve this issue with the party involved, not just this particular instance, because as a respected, long-standing editor and administrator, he sets and example for others. I do not have personal animosity toward him, but I believe it is in the best interest of Misplaced Pages if his behavior is corrected. I say this, because, at some point, I may feel it is appropriate to revisit that remark, even if the remark loses its sting for you. However, please discuss with me if you feel that I should not do so. Thank you. Sincerely, --BostonMA 13:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I also think that he could improve himself. He had given some bad remarks in past about me too. I usually reply him back at the spot and try not to keep much in my heart. We all make mistakes and hence should sometime neglect other people mistakes too. Thank you once again. --- ابراهيم 13:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A little (spammed) thank you

Talk:Third holiest site in Islam

Could you put your comments on the new lead on this page? What do you think? Elizmr 13:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

OBL worldwide perception article AFD

You might be interested in this Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Worldwide perception of Osama bin Laden

Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 07:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input

Wa Alikum Assalam ya Ibrahim. Thanks for your support regarding al-Aqsa mosque related articles. I am now to reply to the latest discussion raised there by Amoruso. The page will have to change to fairly represent the exact terminologies associated with it that seems to be some how confused on the page. I had the privilege to be at the Masjid for I am sure for more than a thousand time. I am a Jerusalemite, as my name suggests, and was surprised to see the wrong information this page contains and the confused terminologies used there. The information about the Mosque had mostly the flavor of dispute, particularly that only a one month ago had more info disputing it in regard to its place, being the Furthest mosque, and in regard to its prayer virtue being the third mosque in Islam! I come to realise that some editors are just reading the wrong weak and propoganda sources, or are just been interested in disputing long standing Islamic scripts and views. Almaqdisi 20:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't reformat my comments.

I deliberately have not been bolding the "Keep" or "Delete" or similar single word summaries of my opinion because the single word summaries are unworthy of the emphasis. They are not votes. The sentence following the single word is my true contribution, and that is the part that should be bolded, if any. Thanks! Unfocused 17:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I thought it was just a mistake. You can change it back. regards, --- ابراهيم 17:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR of Nielswik

I'll reply here; the noticeboard for the 3rr really isn't the place for all this sort of talk. As discussed at User talk:Nielswik and User talk:Tewfik, and explained at WP:3RR, "the three revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique." Or, to quote from the policy again, "Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day."

As far as I'm concerned, Nielswik performed 4 reverts within 24 hours. I beleive that of the 6 listed edits, 5 were reverts (I do not think that the 2nd one was). Nielswik disputed the revert status of the first one; I think he/she now agrees, though has pointed out that it is a minor revert. I agree with this point BUT the existence of another revert just outside the 24 hours - and this is only 11 minutes outside -, a previous ban, and the above quotes from policy all mean that I thought a ban was appropriate. Even if the first is not a revert, as stated before, a revert just 11mins out of the period can quite easily be included.

I should also point out that when making the decision, I did not look at the content involved. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter if Nielswik was right or wrong, and whether he thought he was right or wrong - this is a conduct, not a content dispute.

I'm not going to keep going over this - admins have discresion over the implementation of policy. If you disagree with policy, or think it should be clarified, then please go to Misplaced Pages talk:Three-revert rule and discuss it. Admins have not made policy as part of some closed-cabal - anyone can edit the policy page or make changes if they want to. Robdurbar 17:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It was nothing personal and I even do not know you. I am basically against any rule which is ambiguous and give power to a person to decide. I might try to change it by going to 3RR too but do not know if I will have time and patience to convince other people about it. The rule about ban should be clearly defined. Please note that I do not mind if the rule say that one can include 4th revert if it is near an hour. However, rule should say it first. You know that ban also carry a kind of insult (at least for me) and I am proud that even editing in so many disputed article I have been never banned. I will not like if I edit 3 times and somone ban me. If so then ban all the people with 3 reverts too. Everyone should know in advance what he/she should not do. Tell me should you ban http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Jayjg&oldid=81986853#Minor_edits Mr. Jayig for 3RR which I had not reported. Should I report him too and many other? Please define rule clearly and act on them uniformly. regards, --- ابراهيم 18:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I came accross as angry before; I didn't mean to. I think you'll find that Misplaced Pages has very few rules that are set in stone. This is because situations differ wildly between each case. On my behalf, I tend to avoid banning editors for their first violation of the rule, unless they have also been uncivil or very stubborn - people are often unfamiliar with it and all of its technicalities. In the example of Jayig given - its up to you whether to report him or not. But I think the key thing for you to take away from all this are:

1. The best way to avoid bans is to not revert an editor more than once or twice (See Misplaced Pages:Harmonious editing club). Clearly this presents difficulties if you're editing contentious pages. However, there are always alternatives to reverting - ask another editor to have a look at an article, attempt to engage with the editor on the talk page, or in extreme cases start down the dispute resolution path. As I'm sure you will have seen, the best articles come from long negotiation processes; reverting is harmful to such processes. If you do all this, your edits will always be much more resepected.

You seem a good and fair editor. As long as you maintain that approach, I'm sure you will not have any troubles here. Robdurbar 21:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad article

Hello, Ibrahim. Thanks for your message. I haven't been involved in the Muhammad article so it probably won't be appropriate for me to get involved in the mediation. However, I will keep the page on watch and if at any point it is useful for me to contribute something, I will. Best wishes. Itsmejudith 14:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Muhammad mediation

Hello there! That is definitely a good suggestion - the only problem I foresee is that there is currently a backlog of mediation cases waiting for mediators and I'm afraid other people might not be available. ArbCom is very selective in the cases they accept, so they have more time available for the ones they do have. I promise I will handle the mediation to the best of my ability; I took the case knowing that it is a big issue with many interested parties. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Adrian Farrel

Can you please help with finding right category? He is a England scientist not USA. But I am not able to find right category for him. Thanking you in anticipation. --- ابراهيم 14:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ibrahim - thank you for your message, I hope this finds you well! The article looks very good now, and I have categorised it as far as I can as both a British Engineer and Scientist, as well as stubbing in both categories. If you have any other questions on this or other parts of Wiki, please just ask. Rgds, - Trident13 18:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -- ابراهيم 17:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Fate of unlearned

Salaam, I added the Islamic perspective to Fate of the unlearned article, I thought maybe you'd like to see. Cheers! TruthSpreader 18:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Spelling?

Please do NOT correct things written by others in Talk pages. Would you like me to correct your awful spelling and attrocious grammar? I spell it Mohammud.DocEss 19:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Rename

As requested, I have renamed you as User:ALM scientist (underscores have no effect in Misplaced Pages usernames). You should now move your userpages to the new name. Warofdreams talk 04:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Str says the new version doesn't misrepresent the source, but he hasn't even had a look at the source, I promise you. Adding "supposed" implies that Watt doesn't think Jews were believing that way. --Aminz 12:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

His theory is sometime irritating for me. He could presents more sources for otherside view and should not change the material this way. I do not know that how to make him understand this thing. If a source is sure about a concept then we do not go an add supposed there. --- ابراهيم 12:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This irratiting theorist says this:

• I did not misrepresent the source, as I didn't say that Watt called the claim "supposed". Nonetheless we must not endorse the idea that such a claim existed. If we don't do it this way, we should include a sentence about the disputed nature of the claim. However, "my" attempt seemed more concise to me.
• My concern, first and foremost, was NPOV and a properly organized articke. And I don't need "sources" for what you call "otherside". I will grant you that you have a more detailed knowledge about these things, but I have my doubts about organisation and NPOV wording.

Str1977 18:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Article

Ibrahim, have a look at this . It is written by another scholar of Islam who respects(and even loves) Muhammad so much (like Watt) but explains why these Islamic scholars don't convert to Islam. --Aminz 10:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I will take a look at that. --- ابراهيم 10:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks!--Irishpunktom\ 10:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem my dear brother Irishpunktom. I think that you are a very strong person that they ban you so many time but still you come back and work. I think that I am not that strong like you. -- ابراهيم 10:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Was it you who wrote "COMMENT: Adding "strong" to your vote is utterly meaningless and does not add anything to the debate. Please stop it."? --Amists 12:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Not it was not me. --- ابراهيم 12:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I struck out his comment. Yanksox 12:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --- ابراهيم 12:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

After consideration, although you make a strong argument on this AfD, I don't feel like I know enough about the subject to get involved in this heated debate. As far as it goes my view is that you do think there is a 'third holiest site in Islam', so why not try to get the article changed to reflect your view rather than having it deleted. But, I do not feel strongly enough either way to vote in this. Thanks Amists 15:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment from User:Ezeu

Please don't conduct your arguments with User:Amoruso on my talk page. Thanks. --Ezeu 12:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I approach you as a neutral admin. I will try not to do that anymore. --- ابراهيم 13:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I did

Salam. I just enabled it. Feel free to use whenever necessary. Regards --Nielswik_(talk) 15:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for revert. The Battle of Khaybar article is not reliable. The sources are misrepresented. --Aminz 10:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If he reverted again then I will report him on WP:3RR. --- ابراهيم 10:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD: 3rd holiest etc.

Thank you for noticing me. I am not worthy, but nor would I want the neo-Nazis given free reign over articles on, say, western civilization over the past 50 years. -- Simon Cursitor 14:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I saw you at an RfA and came here to read your user page. It is really nice. In fact, I carefully read the section "I Love Islam" and I would say that you are surely right. I wish that you become more active and give the Project more time. --Bhadani 15:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use Images

Hi,

Just noticed three fair-use images on your user page. Please remove them. The images in question are:

1. In The Line Of Fire.jpg
2. Techlogix logo.jpg
3. Giki.jpg

Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A request

In terms of Policy Point (9) as enshrined in Misplaced Pages Fair Use, you are requested to remove the images indicated above from your user page. I trust that you shall do this yourself for the sake of good order instead of giving any other user (including me) any opportunity to remove the fairuse images. Thanks you and regards. --Bhadani 16:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

better ? --- ابراهيم 16:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Definitely better. If you wish I can do more nit-picking. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

sure. -- ابراهيم 16:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(Don't say I didn't warn). The LUMS images on your userpage would qualify as Fair-use images unless a permission to use them anywhere (even outside Misplaced Pages) is given. Misplaced Pages-only permissions are not acceptable as they are not free in true sense of the word. As a 💕, we should give away something that it truly free. Also, even if you get the permission, you should mail a copy of the permission to permissions (at) wikimedia (dot) org so that a ticket verifying the permission can be stored in our servers. An example of it can be seen at this image uploaded by me. Please see Requesting copyright permission for details of what I am talking about. It also goes without saying that it is preferable to upload free images on commons rather than enwiki. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ambuj, the images no longer appear, only links to the images. Sincerely, --BostonMA 17:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I had verbal approval from the Professor of my old University. I think other should assume good faith. Otherwise they could contact the professor themselves. He told me to use them freely and I do not think that he mentioned[REDACTED] exclusively. --- ابراهيم 18:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There are several such images on wikipedia. In my opinion, we should surely assume good faith. --Bhadani 18:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Its because of AGF only that Misplaced Pages exists. All I meant to say was a written permission would be golden. In some point of time in future, when the article that uses them goes for FAC, it would be necessary to have the written permission. It will only get more difficult with time; so why not do it now. Ditto for Prof. Abelson's image. Also, the correct permission should have shown on the image description page (I see that now it is done). Also in future, remember to upload free images to commons. — Ambuj Saxena (talk)

Nice

I thank you for removing the fairuse images from your user page and displaying a high sense of compliance in respect of policies of wikipedia. I also present you a minor barnstar for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia for doing minor edits. I am sure that the Project shall get much more from you depending on the time at your disposal and your inclinations. Regards. --Bhadani 16:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to commend your spirit conveyed in these words on your user page: I am a Ph.D. student in Germany and a wikipedian since March, 2006. I usually edit[REDACTED] when I get bored from work, usually after every 2-3 hours of work for fifteen minutes. Therefore, I could easily make some minor and quick contributions but find time for serious work rarely. I look forward to the time when you shall be able to devote more time to wikipedia. However, concentrating on your real life work is more important. Currently, I also find only a little time to be around due to real life commitments. Please continue, I am sure that you would start loving wikipedia! It is not only an interesting pastime - it is participation in a noble cause for the sake of humanity. Regards. --Bhadani 16:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the award, although I do not deserve that. regards. --- ابراهيم 17:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Salafism

Why did you revert on the Salafism page? Please read over the talk page and address specific issues there instead of outright reverting. There has been a revert war on that page for several weeks now. Cuñado - Talk 18:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I found the version I change more true according to my Muslim believes and both have no extra references to support or deny anything. That why I reverted that. But you are right, I will take a look at talk page. --- ابراهيم 18:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually when I began editing that page it was very confusing and had no real references. I read through many many articles and provided references to everything. Islami and his sockpuppet Truthpedia were reverting to an unreferenced version. I think the main issue is whether Salafism is the true practice of Islam, or a modern movement. Obviously Salafis want to portray the movement as a return to "True" Islam, and that is POV. I even added a paragraph in the introduction, with references, explaining why the term "Salafi" is disputed and confusing. Cuñado - Talk 20:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well according to my understanding Islami was saying the same thing. Okay I will take a look at talk when I will have time. --- ابراهيم 08:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Third holiest

The phrase "Third holiest" referring to al-Aqsa mosque has only been in use since the early 20th century. Historians (Muslim and non-Muslim) agree that, unlike Makkah or Madina, only the site has significance and Jerusalem as a city is not holy. What makes the site especially controversial is that it was built and given the name 'al-Aqsa' about a century after the Qur'an was received. To see a somewhat long discussion of its controversial claim, compiled with over 111 sources (many Islamic), see --Shamir1 20:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So our hadiths books are changed to mention it name in 20th Century. That mean the Sahih bukari copy before 20th century will not have this name and those hadith mentioning Al-Aqsa mosque? A very big claim you have made. --- ابراهيم 10:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have serious problems with non-Muslims discussing this concept.

Particularily when, as far as I can tell, the Zionists are driving this discussion, and their buddies are the same ones strangling the mosque. Muslims can barely reach it now, and in 50 or so years it will have deteriorated so badly that worship will be becoming impossible.

PalestineRemembered 23:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ibrahim, I'm not sure what to tell you about how to request an admin that would not have an appearance of a conflict of interest when closing this AfD. I would recommend you post your concerns on the administrator's noticeboard. Or write to non-muslim/non-jewish admins who might be in a better position to counsel you about this (User:Tom harrison comes to mind). Sorry I can't suggest more. (→Netscott) 11:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The speedy keep is procedural due to the fact that the article had been submitted for deletion such a short time ago. I would suggest you let things settle down for a bit and then rather than submit it for an AfD you submit it for a renaming. Really all that needs to happen is for the article to be renamed. Alternatively you could call for a deletion review and see if the "no consensus keep" of the original AfD or the speedy keep of the second nom could be overturned. Those are the only avenues of recourse that I see at this point. (→Netscott) 21:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Other articles for example The Quran and science are also nominated many times. two times. However, no one speedy keep it. Each time I have to struggle to keep the article. Why[REDACTED] change it behavours. Speedy keep says that an article should be speedy keep if it is nominated in regular intervals. It is nominated second time only. --- ابراهيم 21:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

In use tag

It is polite and mannerful to honor the an "in use" tag, as it means someone is doing a lot of work, but but it's not mandatory. So, since you are going to edit despite the tage, we should try and be careful that we don't accidentally revert each other. -- Avi 16:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

At the moment I am not interesting in editing fake third holiest sites. I am only editing Al-Aqsa mosque section. You can edit the fake ones. I hope there will be no problems. --- ابراهيم 16:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, it would still have been polite to honor the tag. No matter. In any event, it may be your opinion thatthe others are fake, but there are plenty of reliable sources that disagree with you. We must bring the verifiable information and let the reader decide. Please be very careful not to let your personal point of view interfere with an impartial and accurate portrayal of the facts. Thank you. -- Avi 16:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny, you ask that no one should edit the section, yet you ignore an timed in-use tag on the article. . Oh well. -- Avi 16:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you neutrality. Given that your vote of Keep in the AFD and neglecting all of Muslim sources for some travel/News web site. Please do not leave any more message on my talk page. I will be thankful. --- ابراهيم 16:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I will refrain from discussing it with you here; however, if you would look at my edits honestly, you will see that all I am doing is checking and verifying citations and re-writing the text to match the source. I have most probably removed more material than you have, in the name of streamlining the article. I do not call any site fake, as you have, rather, I will try and ensure that all valid sources with proper and acceptable[REDACTED] evidence are brought fairly and let the reader decide for his or herself. I hope you mean to do the same, although your calling other sites "fake" leads me to doubt this. Good Luck. -- Avi 16:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Neglecting all the Muslims in[REDACTED] begging you. Furthermore, using western Media websites to promoting other fake site as Islam holiest and neglecting Muslim sources, put me very serious doubts about you. I cannot trust you any more without having serious doubts. --- ابراهيم 17:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry you cannot trust me, but wikipedia's guidelines do not allow for special interests to take over[REDACTED] to push their points of view. Otherwise, we should let only Muslims write Islamic articles and only Jews write articles about Israel and only Germans write articles about beer, etc. Please refresh yourself with one of wikipedia's main official policy of WP:NPOV. It is only when we bring all major points of view that the reader is able to make an educated decision on his or her own. I agree minor, non-existant, points of view are ballast, but if there are tens and tens of mainstream sources that support something, it belongs in the article. I hope that you think about this and understand how EVERYONE in[REDACTED] is better off if we are able to concentrate on reliabel sources and not personal opinions. Thank you. -- Avi 17:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom questions

I have answered your questions regarding Arbcom. Regarding the AfD, that is not directly related to Arbcom, so I will answer it here:

Questions

Question: Why you think that Islamic sources become a waste and all the Muslims votes against keeping that article become useless. And that article can exist with only non-Islamic sources when it is about Islam? That means Islam sources about Islam are wrong but non-Islamic source decide holiest site?

I really do not understand what you are asking. Can you please explain? -- Avi 16:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: About your judgement: All Shia and All Sunni had voted to delete that article and we do not consider other sites as holiest then why you think that article should be kept?

This has nothing to do with the Arbcom elections, per se. I am afraid you are bringing this up because you are ungappy with my attempting to fix the aforementioined article. Regardless, the answer is that I feel that there are plenty of reliable and verifiable sources that disagree, as I am in the process of trying to clarify. Please discuss this further on your or the articles talk page. Thanks. -- Avi 16:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Three times is the charm

I have answered you three times. Arbcom question pages are not for discussing other editors--that is trolling. Also, the cites I have used in my editing have been from reliable sources such as CNN, NATO, the Washingtom Post, the Syrian Ministry of Tourism (a government site), the published papers of Fullbright scholars, etc. Please do not bring me proofs from travel sites. Further trying to attack other editors using that page will be reverted. Thank you. -- Avi 19:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Avraham. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Avi 19:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What you are talking about? You remove my comment and I put them back. It was 1 rever. How come a WP:3RR warning? I have been never banned so far. It will be good to be banned from you for nothing. --- ابراهيم 19:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder. Secondly, the first paragraph in this section should answer your last point. Thank you. -- Avi 19:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that I have to accept it. otherwise I will be banned. I accept it. Thanks. -- ابراهيم 19:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not correct, you won't be blocked unless you violate a wiki rule, which you have not as of yet. But you are not using the Arbcom page properly. I have answered all of your questions there. 1) I will refuse to discuss other editors there and 2) that page is not to discuss CONTENT but philosophy. I explained my decision three times. If you have an issue with an AfD, the arbcom question page is not the proper place for it. Thank you. -- Avi 19:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Your mediation position

Hey there! Thanks for taking the time to type out your positions; it is very much appreciated. Your concerns will be addressed, I assure you. I thought that it might be useful to define first how images would be weighed if, and only if, we decide to include them. If the consensus is to include them in a separate article, then we will still need the criteria agreed on. Make sense? Have a great night, and I will be posting in the morning. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Islam as this week's WP:AID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Islam was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

Dev920(Mind voting here?) 15:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want to support my FAC, that's absolutely fine. Thankyou for your offer, I may well take you up on it one day. :) Of course, if you wanted to add a few inline citations to Islam, I wouldn't complain... ; ) Dev920(Mind voting here?) 16:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Request

May I suggest that you add to your custom signature the transliteration in English characters? That will certainly assist those of us who do not read Arabic. Thanks in advance. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I liked them that way. But no problem. --- ابراهيم 19:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. --- ALM 19:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You could have both... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No it is fine because I have recently changed my user name from User:Ibrahimfaisal to User:ALM_scientist hence it make sence to change it completly. It is no big deal anyway. -- ALM 19:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mohammad yousuf.jpg

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 20:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion with User:Avraham

Reading your comments on User:Avraham's ArbCom question page, you may be interested in the course of a discussion which currently appears on my talk page. I am greatly concerned regarding either this user's understanding of sources and/or his neutrality. Sincerely, --BostonMA 03:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate taking those issue to him. I have similar concerns. Thank you BostonMA. --- ALM 08:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Islam article

Thanks for your message. I'll try when I have time to improve the English on the article. Itsmejudith 15:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar Thanks

Thank you for the barn star. You honor me for defending the Wiki. But truly have turned away from defending the Wiki at times that a person of stronger character might have committed to an encounter, heart and soul. Your honor is more that I deserve. But as it is a gift from you, I am exceedingly thankful and will display it proudly. Sincerely, --BostonMA 02:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

done. Do you think we need to do something else as well? Secondly, Can you please have a look at Talk:Islam#Customs_and_behavioral_laws and how it can be changed into prose. Thanks! TruthSpreader 13:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing more need to be done. I am very busy these days. I will take a look when I will be tired from work. --- ALM 13:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Ziyart?

A good suggestion. I've updated the AFD, as you've probably already noticed. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Without the Mine's Bigger Than Yours stuff, is there much real content in 3rd holy that isn't in Zyiart? Regards, Ben Aveling 19:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"third holiest"

Hello Ibrahim, please know that I'm of the opinion that User:Avraham (Avi) has been editing and contributing in good faith surrounding the "third holiest" article. I see your interactions with him have been very accusatory... I don't think such interactions are well founded given what I have seen and my communications with him. I honestly think that as much as it is possible to do so Avi's edits have gone some way towards improving the article (still I hold the view that it should just be deleted obviously). Thanks. (→Netscott) 19:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I do not think so but if you say so then I believe it. You are one of the people I respact a lot here. Among some people I think very fair. :) --- ALM 19:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Apology

I confused Almaqdisi's edits for yours, and my accusation was thus uncalled for. You have my sincerest apologies. I will strike out the text referring to the confusion on the page now. -- Avi 23:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem sir. I have been also giving you hard time and accusing back. I do not like to be a person who do so. However, I strongly think that this article of Third holiest site in Islam should be deleted and there is no reason to keep it espacially under current very wrong title. Having said that, we should not make it a personal issue towards each other. After above message from User:Netscott I will start new and try my best to think very good about you :). Lastly I never abuse anyone hence saying me uncivil will be very wrong too. It is against my principles on which my personality stand. --- ALM 12:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)