You voiced your opinion in the original straw poll which has caused some confusion. Please do the same in a new version, Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion_.28untainted.29, which should be clear and allow us to better assess consensus. grenグレン 22:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Response
You've been around the block a few times. Itaqallah and Aminz do this with every revert, they throw the baby out with the bath water. I will agree to be more conscientious with reverting you if you will with reverting me as well, OK? Now about that quote, you weren't quoting Watt on my talk. What is the full quote? Arrow740 05:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
RE: Your user page
No I wouldn't mind at all! Go right ahead.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk) 17:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Poll on every little issue
Please sign if any of these things applies to your understanding of this issue. Please put you name under all of the options you think would be acceptable. You can sign all or none of these, I'm hoping this will give us a more-fine grained understanding of the issue. [1]futurebird 23:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Location
You might want to update your userpage. Arrow740 01:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
If you say so. Arrow740 20:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You indicated you were in Lancaster, England. Arrow740 20:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
So it's not true? Arrow740 06:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess it's just a little taqiyya on your userpage [2][3]? Arrow740 21:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe just a vacation. Arrow740 23:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Re:Islam and Slavery
Nice!! --Aminz 02:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
If only it were true. Keep in mind the example of Muhammad and the earliest Muslims. Everything Muhammad did was ethical, remember. Arrow740 06:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Battle of Khaybar
I completely agree with you. --Aminz 04:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV
((helpme))
Hello,
WP:NPOV#Undue_weight says that users shoudln't give undue wieght to minority views. Let's say we have an article that is 10 paragraphs long. While 5 paragraphs are devoted to a majority perspective, and 5 are devoted to a minority perpective. This is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. But should it be solved?
One solution is clearly that we can add majority views, so that the majority receives due prominence in the article. But let's say that users are unable to find more material on what the majorioty believes. Should we then begin to remove the minority perspective, although it is sourced to Reliable Sources? Bless sins 17:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It's rare that removing sourced information is a good thing. If you can't find more sources on the majority view, you could tag the section as ((unbalanced)), explain the problem on the talk page, and that will attract the attention of editors and readers who might be able to help. Hope that helps! --ais523 18:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This is something of a tricky situation. In my opinion, if you can't fix the situation yourself tagging the page is better than removing information in an attempt to balance it, as long as that information is well sourced. As for moving the information, you need to be careful. Moving it into another article that expressed a non-neutral point of view would be a POV fork, and therefore strongly discouraged. However, in some circumstances it would make sense to create an article about the minority point of view. For instance, there are articles like Criticism of Wikipedia that discuss a certain point of view without violating neutrality rules. Hope that helps! --ais523 09:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Muhammad
Hey Bless sins, regarding this, I would love to hear your view on the matter. It's hard to discuss at Talk:Muhammad and Talk:Muhammad/Mediation because some users on both sides have become somewhat belligerent, myself (maybe) included :O. Anyways, get back to me when you have a chance. Thanks, --Hojimachongtalk 22:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Wheeeeee
<the award below has been copied to the main page>
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For being nice and not screaming, like so many other editors do. And you're long overdue. Hojimachongtalk 20:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
PS: your template idea looks pretty solid, if I am understanding it right. Would that be the image description page, or the top of the Muhammad page, or a section further down in the Muhammad page? --Hojimachongtalk 20:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
You're too kind. Screaming never got anything done. The most scholarly image should be put near the top, while the second most scholarly one should be put lower down. We can put as many images as we want on the article devoted to images of Muhammad.Bless sins 20:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your statements; the only question is which image is the most scholarly? ALM brought up the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, thought I think this was a point, not an actual suggestion. I hope the person who is supposed to be mediating the discussion comes back, he hasn't really been active since the 19th, with his last edit being three days ago. --Hojimachongtalk 22:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I am with you. --Aminz 22:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Please lets not fill every sentence on Ali Sina with Claimed and Alleged. Its messy as Sefringle pointed out and its pretty clear without it - all references are given, so there's no need of "Alleged" and "Claims". There's no need of that stuff - it just makes things hard to read. --Matt57 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
How many times do we see the word Claim or Aledge in Muhammad? For example, are you saying we should change this line "After this event, Muhammad sent a message to Mecca with three conditions, asking them to accept one of them." to "After this event, Muhammad claims that he sent a message to Mecca with three conditions, asking them to accept one of them. " - There is not a SINGLE mention of the word "Claim" in the sense we are talking here, in Muhammad - why should there be such a word in Ali Sina then? --Matt57 02:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
What false statements does Ali sina make? Give me one example. I think its pretty clear that the article is about the website and its claims and stuff. The Claims and Alledges will just make it harder to read, so use it only when really necessary. You cant put "claims" in every sentence.--Matt57 04:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I would say with personal experience that the statement is generally true - and its obvious he was talking in a general sense. Not all Muslims lack pride and self-esteem and also there are many degrees of Muslims. There would be some with a lot of good healthy self-esteem, for example. Saying that all Muslims have 0 pride is not true, however thats not what Ali said. I think we're going into debate now which I wont do. Since the article is about Ali Sina, its relevant to quote him and the website. You can work on a Criticism section in that article, but be sure to follow standard wiki policies, which you know already. --Matt57 18:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Its alright, I'm not here to tell others what I think of Muslims and Islam. We are here to improve articles.--Matt57 18:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
What statement do you want to remove and why? Please take it up in the talk page: Talk:Faith Freedom International. The statement is a quote by the way from the author of the site. If Bush said "All monkeys are stupid", its ok to have that in his article, since its a quote. Please continue in the Talk page of the article. --Matt57 18:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
<R> - Oh ok, so it was that statement, I thought you were refering the blanket statement Ali made. I see you removed them now. Since its according to policy so I guess it cannot be contested.--Matt57 18:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Trying to get your attention towards the Faith Freedom page. My eidts are being deleted for no reason. I have made some comments regarding the article and its presentation. which violates many of the Wiki rules.
would you like to discuss. I am not against deleting the article or anything. Rather i am for putting the article in its right perspective. for example.1) the article alleges that it has 20,000,000 visitors. I agree however i state that it has only 1200 members who write ever wrote on its fourmns. I state that all the stuff on the website is read around only 10,000 times out of the 20,000,000 visitors it had. all this has been referenced by me (site meter is the ref:)Aditionally each visitor spends 5 minutes or less on the entire site and less than 5 seonds on each page.
Then there are violations of references. No outside references are given. If given they are reports of Ali sina himself. How can that be credible when speaking about his own self.
Z2qc1
Is the image more notable than the cartoon images of Jylland Posten and Bahomet?
This means, if some biased editors want to dictate the pictures on the basis of notability then better put those cartoon or Jylland posten images, so that a reader can run away after coming to know what stupidity wikipeida has. The cartoon or Bahomen image will tell all the story how reliable is wikipedia, instead of deceiving the readers by not putting the cartoon/bahomet image and giving the wrong information to the reader at the same time. It is better to make the reader aware from the start how biased wikipedia article is about Muhammad. (SAW)VirtualEye 18:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I have read you competetion page. It is good but it will NOT solve the problem. We need arbitration. May be we can file arbitration using above arguments. --- ALM 11:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Vaglieri
It does not seem to me that Vaglieri meant to agree that the situation with the Banu Nadir "[left] him no choice but to attack Khaybar."Proabivouac 01:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
For one thing, you're stating that the Jews were "intriguing." Arrow740 20:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
No you're not. Look at the sentence again. Arrow740 20:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It is stating the intriguing as fact. Arrow740 21:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
New page
Hi. Maybe a new page called something like
Alleged human rights violations by Israel in Palestinian territories or
Human Rights under Israeli Occupation could be created. I don't see any dedicated page to put the material from:
But it does not have the room for much more material. And it does not seem like a good place to put the info. The material is about human rights in the Palestinian territories, not Israel itself.
I recommend copying the wiki code before it disappears too. When I have time I may keep converting the links to reference links there. That way the relevant sourced info can be copied to the appropriate wikipedia pages. Feel free to copy any of the info to other pages. --Timeshifter 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
ASA. Desperate help needed on islamophobic article Ramadan riots which is actually the same thing as French riots. Claims that the french unrest in the ghetoes was motivated by hatred of jews and christians as allegedly commanded by the quran, as opposed to alienation of arab and african kids. Support speedy deletion. Aaliyah Stevens 00:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Material counts as original research if it introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article. You have to abide by policy, you really, really do. Jayjg (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I find it hypocritical that you post on my talk page after removing my comments that I posted on your talk page [4].Bless sins 23:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to remove them; I won't be upset. I'm only trying to get your attention. Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately, I can take legitimate (ill-legitimate in this case) criticism. I also understand that the purpose of talk pages is communication, something that can't be achieved through deliberate censorship. I only wish the same was true for you. In any case I request you to stop blanking the sourced statements on Islam and antisemitism and discuss this matter on talk.Bless sins 23:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
You keep talking about "sourced statements", as if that's meaningful, but ignoring the fact that they violate WP:NOR. You really have to follow policy, not just keep repeating "sourced statements". Jayjg (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Correct Jayjg, but you do realize, that at wikipedia atleast, you are subject to the same policies as I. Thus please go take a look at WP:NOR yourself.The exegesis is clearly in relation to anti-Semitism, you yourself have admitted that.Bless sins 23:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I never said any such thing; I said that there are some sources relate it to antisemitism. If you want to bring other sources that say its not antisemitism, that's fine, but you can't bring any old sources you want that discuss the verses just because the topic has been raised. You have to bring sources that discuss the verses in relation to antisemitism. That's what WP:NOR says. Jayjg (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we take our conversation to the talk of Islam and antisemitism - there you'll find exactly what you said. I'll wait for your response to my last comment in the "Apes and pigs" section.Bless sins 23:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Avi 04:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Please review WP:BLP. You seem to have a misunderstanding as to its proper application. Thank you. -- Avi 04:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Once again, please review the policies you seem to be quoting; your acts resemble POV whitewashing, which is not allowed in wikipedia. Thank you. -- Avi 19:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll look into it
Hey Bless sins,
I'll look into the article you mentioned soon. Cheers, --Aminz 21:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you recently edited Militant Islam. I have put it up for deletion. Please contribute to the afd discussion. Thanks.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 23:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I have revised my comments at the deletion vote, but I still feel that an article on that topic would be an appropriate one for Wikipedia. The related articles do not quite have the same topic. On such a topic thre are certain to be strong differences of opinion, and I agree with your concerns about POV issues and a lack of references. The ((fact)) tag is useful to highlight questionable statements, and a discussion page can be used to try and arrive at compromise language. Failing that, there is always the option of adding your text (fully referenced) which contradicts what someone else's reference claims. I wonder also if you mightn't object to some of the "see also:" references at the end of the article as not meeting standards of WP:ATT? I believe I have seen coverage of the topic in Time, Newsweek, the New York Times, and similar European publications which are generally accepted as reliable sources. Many religions have extremists, or terrorists, or militants, or fundamentalists, and these four categories are not always the same. Regards. Edison 23:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Overwheliming clause
Salam aleikum,
I have seen your call foe help on the WP:BLP talk page. I want to remind you that everybody is entitled to help make guidelines and policy. If you have a suggestion of what should be in them please explain your idea on the talk page and it may will gain consensus among other wikipedians. Take care AlfPhotoman 00:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Per your request
Bless sins, per your request, I have copied this to your talk page. Are you saying that you are not in any way connected to the person who posted as User:216.99.52.133?Proabivouac 03:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you not think that it is far too late for you to be asking the question? You have already made it clear that you believe I'm involved in "personal attacks, vandalism, vote-stacking or disruption" [5]. If you were not serious at all, and randomly pointing a finger at me - then I owe you no explanation. On the contrary if you seriously believe I'm that user, and have "evidence"[6] to back it up, then report me on Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets and I'll make my response there. Bless sins 20:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I would never have "randomly point[ed] the finger at" you, and it brought me no joy to have arrived at that conclusion. It is by this time quite salient that you have avoided a direct denial.
So, are you in any way connected to the person who posted as User:216.99.52.133?Proabivouac 21:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Does the statement "false accusations" (that were made by you on Str1977's page) mean anything to you? Why don't you report me as a sockpuppet? I would really like to see the "evidence" that you have threatened to bring forth.Bless sins 02:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Reliable sources
To state that the ADL is not (in the words of WP:ATT) “ authoritative in relation to the subject at hand,” which is antisemitism and anti-semitic people, is somewhat bizzare. Perhaps you do not know of the Anti Defamation League, seeing as you are from Canada. I will assume good faith and refuse to believe your statement has anything to do with trying to whitewash certain people. Also, I'd like to remind you about WP:3RR, especially as regards the Al-Sudais article. Thank you. -- Avi 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, you will be blocked from editing. Briangotts(Talk)(Contrib) 14:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC) (please stop blanking)
Please respond on Talk:Ilan Halimi before you revert categories that are eminently applicable and supported by the text itself. -- Avi 16:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I am looking for a new name for the Category:Documentaries critical of Islam. I thought you might be interested in helping me out with finding an appropriate name. Most of the films (which I have seen) do not say that the recorded footage represents the religion of Islam. It is more about Islamic culture that exists among some Muslims, not all Muslims. You may want to see the beginning of Obsession, where in the first minute it makes a point to say what the movie is about. Please let me know. Thanks. --Shamir1 21:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Seriously
Work with me, honestly, and we'll get somewhere. Otherwise, it will be impossible to edit. I really take policy seriously. It's a great offer. Jayjg (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
From what I see, so far, you don't want to work with me. You seem to think that I'm not serious about my edit, that I don't want to follow wiki policies, and that I'm on wikipedia in order to make negative changes. Please consider the fact that the other person also has feelings and ideas.Bless sins 06:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You have to agree to WP:NOR, you really do. All sources have to refer back to the original topic. You can't claim that once someone has made a claim, you can bring anything you want to refute it. You know this. Otherwise WP:NOR would be meaningless. Please stop playing around. We can take out the other junk sources too, but I need to see some good faith on your part fisrt. Also, you know you had no idea who Craig Smith was until today, but you defended him anyway. Just admit it and move on, it's no big deal. Jayjg (talk) 06:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I've already said that I agree with WP:NOR [7]. Seriously Jayjg, if someone claims that the Quran/Bible/Talmud advocates colonization of the planet Mars in verse X:Y, how is one to refute such a silly claim. Should wikipedia present the claim as if it was fact. I appeal to your common sense.Bless sins 06:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You can't just say you support WP:NOR, you have to support it even when you really want to insert some, as with the Islam and antisemitism stuff. Even if you think it's really important to "refute such a silly claim". There are much better ways of dealing with this that don't violate policy, and I can teach them to you, but you have to honestly agree to follow WP:NOR first, even if you don't like the results. First agree that you cannot insert material that doesn't relate to antisemitism as well, because it it WP:NOR. Even if you find it silly, or offensive, or you really feel a need to "refute such a silly claim". Then I'll show you how to deal with the rest. Jayjg (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Please show me how to deal with such ridiculous material.Bless sins 06:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
First agree that your response was to try to refute the arguments with WP:NOR because you found it ridiculous and offensive. Then I'll tell you how to deal with it. Jayjg (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I feel like I'm bieng interogated by some police officer, trying to extract a confession from me. It's getting late, and I think I should get some sleep. By the time I wake up, both of us will have calmed down and then we can discuss some more. Good night (or morning/afternoon, depending on where you live).Bless sins 06:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
To answer your question on 06:28, 25 March 2007: No, WP:NOR is neither ridiculous nor offensive, and infact works extremely well 99.99% of the time. However, all wiki policies must be used in conjunction with common sense and reason. When I interpreted the "in relation to the topic..." clause, I didn't choose the most obvious interpretation, but rather the one that made the most sense. You see, I'm not "ruthless" about policies, and am willing to consider the other user's perspective, to work out a compromise that will build concensus.Bless sins 16:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppet of Allah
'Sockpuppet' is a term used on wikipedia for masquerading. Maybe there is a definition here: [WP:Sockpuppet]. It's like dividing your personality. Maybe run the term through www.dictionary.com or think of the example of a person doing a voice impression of George Bush or Al Gore with their hand imitating the action of a mouth talking.DavidYork71 06:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
My thesis is that the same Userbox applies to you.DavidYork71 21:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
banging your head against a wall
Hi, I see JayJG has been leaving messages on your page, with his false concern about the rules and supposed reasonableness. In reality, JayJG is a rabid Zionist and is trying to purge Wikipedia of any negative information about Zionism, and is trying to paint Muslims in a bad light. Along with many of his cohorts.
The problem is that JayJG is part of the Wikipedia cabal. When there were elections, despite massive efforts to the contrary, a number of people got a higher vote percentage than JayJG - but Jimbo Wales put him on ArbCom anyhow. Jimbo has shown his true colors as well.
These people control Wikipedia. They are all together, and attacking you. No one is coming to your aid. This is because they control Wikipedia, with Jimbo at the center, and have more or less driven off everyone else. You are banging your head against a wall here - any massacre by Zionists against Palestinians will be covered up, distorted, justified etc., anyone who attacks an Israeli soldier will be castigated here.
My suggestion is to direct your efforts to somewhere more creative, like a wiki encyclopedia that is not pro-Zionist and anti-Muslim like this one. Or if you do continue here for a little bit, to spend less time. It is better to waste 5 hours of time accomplishing nothing than 10. Eventually you will give up here, everyone does. You are fighting a losing battle. Ruy Lopez 04:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Seems that most comments (including those by WAS, Alf, Slim, etc.) agree that the sources do not need to be bowdlerized, even if they "give you the shivers" as Alf says. I think the best thing that you could do for the article would be to bring some suitable sources about the good that Sudais does. FOr example, I've asked on the talk page that the part about his renditions of the Qur'an be sourced; they have been tagged since February. That is obviously a good thing that Sudais does. I'm sure there is much more that can be expanded about his work in the university and the mosques. He preaches about many things besides Jews, I hope, and his calls for charity and the like should be represented. Also, there still is little to no mention of his family. -- Avi 04:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Alf and slim specifically reference the overwhelming for example " but one cannot exclude some aspects of it because it is "too much"" (Alf). It seems that those who cared to pass comment believe that the article as it stands is not overwhelmed in wiki standards. -- Avi 05:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Wiki policy is discussed, and consensus reached, by people, so there will never be 100% consistency. If there is an issue that you have with Gilbert, why don't you post a link to the BLP talk section on the Gilbert talk page and ask for comment? -- Avi 05:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I need your point of view about this article. I think they only took the apes part but they hide other verse of the Quran and I also think that its should be delete. How about you? should it be delete? or ..?--Towaru 20:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins, a complaint has been filed on WP:ANI regarding your associate, User:216.99.60.104/206…/216…. I should like to think that you don't approve of this user's behavior, and would deeply appreciate your help in putting a stop to it.Proabivouac 02:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I've requested mediation proceedings here [8] concerning the "sex with female captives" dispute and listed you as a party. Would you be willing to join the discussion? Many thanks for considering this, and for all your good work on the article. BYT 08:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to comment there. Your user name was mentioned in the report. --Timeshifter 22:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamic military jurisprudence.
This message delivered: 08:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
72 virgins
How is the quote not relevant? Mohammed in the hadith said that Muslims will get 72 virgins. Please discuss on the talk page before removing content like this. --Matt57(talk•contribs) 18:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
There you go. Dont delete the quote and do any kind of similiar deletions again. I have many more improvements to make to this article. OFCOURSE its relevant. A notable person said this in the context of religion. Its just amazing what lengths people go to, to censor information. --Matt57(talk•contribs) 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
High quality edits
Hey, your quality of edits are much improved. Wow! --Aminz 20:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
EL
WP:EL - links are determined by relevance. Notability is not an issue. I undid your edit here. --Matt57(talk•contribs) 23:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
1. Tell me how the links you left are reliable as compared to the ones you took off.
I got the response from the editors there at EL. An EL doesnt have to be a RS. Think about it - who will determine whether a link is RS or not? Its not even possible. The editor there said, that only links which are not "factually innacurate and unverifiable original research" should be excluded. But for sure, you cannot take out links saying they're not Reliable Source (WP:RS), because that is not a requirement as the Talk page there says.--Matt57(talk•contribs) 00:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm doubtful of the quality of your edits when you questioned the RS status of Ibn Warraq (reply over there too please). Please use Talk for the Lsits of converts to Islam. Being a terrorist is a very notable fact about a person and should be mentioned. I'm seeing that you're not using talk for big reverts. --Matt57(talk•contribs) 01:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Elimination of Junk-Articles on Afghanistan
Hi, I agree with your proposal to remove the (silly) article called the Islamic "Emirate(???)" of Afghanistan. I have tried editing the "Emirate" Of Waziristan as well as the Afghan one, but either way I think they are throw away. Are you familiar with how the article-removal process is started?Mehrshad123 06:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I decided to keep the material you added origionally, but decided to make some changes to NPOV it somewhat, as most of your changes are one sided. I'd appreciate it if you can use the talk page to explain your edits before you make major reverts in the future.--Sefringle 02:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
unexplained deletions
Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Ahmed Yassin. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. -- Avi 21:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own personal analysis, or make any non-neutral point-of-view deletions to the content or categories of Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ahmed Yassin. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Avi 22:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Please read the article again, carefully. -- Avi 19:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
In the future, why don't you refrain from mischaracterizing POV-style edits as legitimate, and then we would not be having this conversation . Also, please educate yourself on the wikipedian meaning of vandalism. If it makes you feel better, I will substitue ((uw-npov2)) for ((uw-delete2)) -- Avi 19:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It depends on the content. Sometimes it should be deleted (BLP issues, for example) Othertimes an attempt should be made at finding sources. Regardless, this is sourced now. -- Avi 20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Inuse tag
Please don't abuse the inuse tag to simply revert to your previous edits, as you have done many times before. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Given the fundamental disagreements on the Talk: page, would be best if you got consensus for these edits first. Jayjg (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I haven't made major edits, I've mostly just undone your POVing. No doubt I'll have to do so again, until you finally get some consensus. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I've explained at length on Talk: why your POV edits aren't acceptable. Please get consensus first, and don't use the inuse tag as a weapon in your edit-wars. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you please explain your recent edits to Islam and antisemitism on its talk page? I think it would be better to discuss the changes rather than revert war over them.--Sefringle 01:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins, you're just repeating yourself on the Talk: page. You need to come up with more valid arguments. Jayjg (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
And please refraim from making such massive reverts/edits in the future without discussing them first.--Sefringle 04:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Sources
Bless sins, regarding your inquiries on Talk:Battle of Khaybar, I don't wish to approach you with mistrust. However, there have been debates in the past surrounding the representation of sources, and it can save everyone a lot of time and frustration if you share the relevant passages in full. You have my assurance that if something is topical and comes from a respected academic source, I will support its inclusion.Proabivouac 18:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Palestine
WikiProject Palestine is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Palestine. Ahlan wa Sahlan! (Welcome!)
Request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islam and antisemitism, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
Hello friend. Who is "Ali" that is referenced in the Jizya article? There needs to be at least one full citation and it appears that you're the user who added the partial citations to this author. If that's the case, can you please fix this as soon as you can? I'd like to use the citation in the Arab Christians article. All the best. Slacker 13:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. The problem here is that "Ali (1990) p. 507" is only a partial citation; it doesn't include his full name or the title of this work (among other things). You can't use a partial citation until after you've provided at least one full citation, otherwise how will the reader reach the original source? So, do you have at least the title of this book so we can modify the citation? Thanks again and sorry for the inconvenience. Slacker 16:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see what you mean. Sorry, and thanks for your help. Slacker 06:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Inuse tag
Bless sins, if you've finished making your edits on Battle of Khaybar, you should remove the ((inuse)) tag to allow for others to edit, even if they are unfortunate blanket reverts. just informing you if you forgot to remove the tag or something. ITAQALLAH 23:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
That template is bogus and I will generally ignore it. Arrow740 23:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
