| Revision as of 20:18, 10 November 2006 editCunado19 (talk | contribs)8,885 edits →Salafism← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:28, 10 November 2006 edit undoShamir1 (talk | contribs)8,527 edits Third holiestNext edit → | ||
| Line 174: | Line 174: | ||
| ::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. ] ] - ] 20:18, 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. ] ] - ] 20:18, 10 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 --] 20:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:28, 10 November 2006
|
| 1 |
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
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:
- 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:
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)
- sure. -- ابراهيم 16:37, 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)
- There are several such images on wikipedia. In my opinion, we should surely assume good faith. --Bhadani 18:33, 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)
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)
- 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
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)