User talk:Irishpunktom

Old Stuff

Thanks

Hey, thanks for the welcome. I've actually been reading wikipedia for a few months now. Any reason you saw my name and came across with the hello? Nice meeting you and thanks again! Thaagenson 22:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Current Events

Hey, thanks for correcting my entry into NPOV. See ya around the wiki. - Chef Ketone 18:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

new vfd

The prior VFD that you voted at ended with no consensus, a new VFD has been opened at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Historical persecution by Muslims. ~~~~ 18:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

VfD pollution

Ril enlisted Persecution by Muslims for VfD again, just 24 hours after the article withstood the first VfD. You might be interested to watch it. [1] --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 10:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Slave trade

It seems that Guy Montag and Jayjg have blindly reverted our edits at that article.Heraclius 17:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Blindly? I examined every edit you made; none benefitted the article. As for Tom's edits, they're still in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Dispute with an admin

Hi,

I have a complaint against UninvitedCompany, an administrator. Basically, he violated the blocking policy, by blocking me (for 72 hours) after I made 2 reverts, claiming I had broken the 3RR policy listing 4 reverts - 22:51 5 August 2005, 23:00 5 August 2005, 08:58 6 August, 23:12 6 August 2005 - however, none of these cover a period over 24 hours. At the time of the fourth revert listed, there was only 1 prior revert in the prior 24 hours. This is also true for the time of the 3rd revert listed.

I accused UnivitedCompany of breaking the blocking policy, and UnivitedCompany openly admitted doing so - "I have indeed violated the letter of the blocking policy". I also accused UninvitedCompany of blocking me because he/she has an anti-Islamic POV and didn't like the fact that I was opposing anti-Islamic POV pushers, UninvitedCompany replied admitting that they have an "extremely anti-Islamic" POV.

I don't feel this is appropriate behaviour for an administrator - violating blocking policy, and reinterpreting 3RR as 1RR, simply to punish people whose opinions they disagree with, isn't really something that should be permissable. Several administrators have already stated that the block was probably inappropriate (and none have supported UninvitedCompany's stance), but they seem unwilling to become involved (possibly due to UninvitedCompany's status as a longstanding admin (which UninvitedCompany claims makes him a "senior administrator", a post which simply does not exist), not that a cabal exists).

I would like to raise an RFC over the matter, but I need a co-signatory to do so, so I was wondering if you would be able to look into the matter.

Thanks,

-Ril-

~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Thanks - User:-Ril-/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/UninvitedCompany

~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

source

Do you have a source for this?

• • • Ariel Sharon (during an interview with General Ouze Merham in 1956) "I vow that I’ll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian women and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian child’s existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian woman is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do"

--Irishpunktom\^talk 14:30, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4] (very POV website)
4. [5] (guardian newspaper)
5. [6]
6. [7]
7. [8]
8. [9]
9. [10] (Daily Mirror (not the UK newspaper, but one from elsewhere))
10. [11] (Annual Islamophobia awards (UK)) - this is where I first got it from
11. [12]
12. [13] (Palestine chronicle)

~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Why are these all using Google cache? And why are you quoting reader comments (ala a comment in the Guardian blog) as verifiable?! Absurd. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The quote is actually taken from a fictional work In the Land of Israel by Amos Oz, and has been attributed on propaganda sites to Sharon. It's a well-known hoax. See [14] [15] Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

See Ouze Merham. Cheers, HKT ^talk 03:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Three-revert rule violation

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule on Al-Andalus. --Michael Snow 07:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Ill take a look :) --Striver 19:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Al-Andalus

If this dif shows the revert war then I would say this... haven should definitely not be linked to as it has no useful definition pertinent to what it's being linked for. I would also remove haven... which seems to be the main point of contention. I wouldn't mind saying that they were "quite tolerant"... I would also remove that source... it's on an orthopedics page... so... not the most trustworthy... if it comes originally from a good source then you can link that. If there is a strong source that says the took in Jews and Sufis then I think "absorbing religious minorities persecuted in other lands, such as Jews and Sufis" would be fine using the other source. There is plenty linked about tolerance here. I would give up on that battle or compromise and find a source talking about how dhimmis didn't have to serve in the military... I know that's true in most doctrine... I don't know if this happened in Al-Andalus but if it's true it's notable. This may not have been the answer you wanted but... that's what I think about it all. gren グレン 19:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd cite that book about the Malis going as an example for that opening. I don't think haven is any simpler than saying "place of tolerance". I think something like that will suffice... I don't think it's something worth getting into an edit war over and I do see Jayjg's point... haven implies a lot... as if many were fleeing and all went there... I don't know... I personally don't think haven is too bad or implies too much more than place of tolerance.... maybe you'd prefer refuge... if that'd be allowed but I think that'd be the same problem as haven. gren グレン 03:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

hi

First of all, its not "near the end of time", Shia started dissliking Umar from the very first, refer to Sahi Muslim to read that Ali And Ibn Abbas thought of Umar and Abu Bakr as liers, sinfull, treacherous and dishonest.

For the second part, Umar and Abu Bakr both abused and talked bad of other Sahaba, so if anything, im following their way.

Third, in one hadith it is clear that Muhammad (as) did not regard Khalid ibn Walid as a Sahaba. So in Muhammads (as) view, not anyone was a sahaba.

--Striver 11:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Be aware

Thanks for the heads up. It's something like that I would expect from him. Anyway, it's not much I can do about it, but to let the facts talk for themselves. Oh, I really don't like the "ganging up" mentality some people get. All I want to do is to do some edits and then get on with my life. I neither want not have the time to build up a gang to wage war. // Liftarn

3RR at Al-Andalus

Tom, by re-adding the phrase "noted for its tolerance, was a refuge for people fleeing oppression, such as Jews escaping", you've violated the 3RR at Al-Andalus. Moreover, since you have only provided examples of Jews, the phrase "such as Jews" is incorrect. I recommend you revert yourself before you are blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

As I explained, you have reverted to the phrase "noted for its tolerance, was a refuge for people fleeing oppression, such as Jews escaping etc." 4 times now. The only example we have of it being a refuge is for Jews, no other peoples, therefore it is inaccurate, which is why I keep removing it. As well, the phrase "noted for its tolerance" is POV, and we have been disagreeing about that for weeks; it is disingenuous to now claim you don't understand why reverting to it is controversial. Please revert your 3RR violation, as I do not want to see you blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Right now I'd like you to revert your 3RR violation, as I'm about to fill out the 3RR report. We can talk about the exact wording of a new version on the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm about to hit the submit button, Tom. Please re-consider this course of action. I'll give it a couple more minutes. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Since the reference appears to be disputed, my opinion is that J's version should hold until a full citation can be provided. Why not simply wait till you come back from vacation, provide the full cite, and be done with it, rather than engage in violations of 3RR? Personally, judging from what I have read about Gardell's work generally (I have not yet actually read the book), I have serious concerns as to its reliability, but I'll leave it to those who have read it to attack it. Briangotts (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I can cite nothing specific. I have not thought of or heard of the book in some time. I remember discussing it (or maybe it was his other book about the NOI) with a professor when I was in college and he relayed to me his critique of some of the author's history; the one thing that sticks out in my mind is that Gardell apparently said that Farrakhan is not an anti-Semite and made other questionable assertions. As I said, I am in no position to attack Gardell's work but if a citation is demanded it should be provided. Briangotts (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Pat Robertson

Why does the Pat Robertson story belong on the 23rd when it was first reported on the 22nd? I am getting seriously annoyed. Zoe 22:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

It belongs on the Tuesday, because that is the date on every single one of the News Reports.. Funny that, considering I wrote the current events entry On Monday night. Zoe 20:22, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• It's not really that funny, considering you added this at 06:31, August 23, 2005.. Tuesday.--Irishpunktom\^talk 21:13, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • It was 6:31 UTC, which makes it 11:31 California time. It's a really stupid thing to argue about and I'm not going to pursue it, but your actions are entirely inappropriate and I suggest you desist from trying to make Current events your private domain. Zoe 21:27, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I beg to differ. Current events operates on local time. Zoe 21:31, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • I have brought this up for discussion at Talk:Current events. Zoe 21:38, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Maria Sabina

Hi, I noticed your recent "Cleanup" tag, what do you think particularly needs work? Haiduc 04:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Suicide Bombing

But now that the Palestinian Islamic Jihad has accepted responsibility for the bombing, your point is moot. Also, just as a personal aside, who else could it have possibly been, but a Palestinian? An Italian? Please. I know you are pro-Palestinian, but even you've got to be able to draw the line somewhere. There has never, in recorded history, been a suicide bombing attack against Israeli targets not perpetrated by Palestinian militant. Fact.

gender

As you said, it does deserve and article, and it has one now, also its in need of a total makeover. The subject is legit, the content is not. So we change the content, not delet the aritcle. --Striver 03:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK/Wikimania 2006

Hi, this is a circular to Wikipedians in Ireland to draw your attention to Wikimedia UK, where the establishment of a local Wikimedia chapter for the United Kingdom (and possibly for the Republic of Ireland) is being discussed. See the talk page, as well as the mailing list; a meetup will take place to discuss matters in London in September, for anyone who can get there. On another topic, plans are being drawn up for a UK bid for Wikimania 2006, which would be conveniently close to Ireland. On the other hand, Dublin's bid was one of the final three last year - might we bid again? --Kwekubo 04:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Gender roles article

(Ponders the work ahead... sighs...)

You know how the Andalus thing has a piece about cultural comparisons between eras and their validity or lack thereof? Do you think it's worth me trying to build something like that into opening graph? Let me know.

A lot of the stuff below there seems to me to generate more heat than light. Let me know if you are willing to tag-team this one into shape... peace... BrandonYusufToropov 14:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

PS: What happens is they assign an illustrator to you, and if you're lucky they let you look at the illustrations beforehand and lobby for replacements if necessary. First draft KORAN book illustrations had lots of people and faces!!! BYT

Current events barnstar

I'd put it on your user page, but it's protected.

For creating the article to highlight such a large event in Iraq, and getting it featured on the Main Page, I hereby award you the Current Events Barnstar. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 06:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Gender roles article

I started some edit work on the top third of this, will add more later inshaAllah. Nice stuff! BrandonYusufToropov 10:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I copyedited the 'family' section, and removed the insha'Allah reference there which I think was a bit out of place. The article looks quite good, but it might be slightly POV (I can't put my finger of what exactly it is, it's just a tiny nagging feeling). - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 11:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

When you get the chance ...

... can you please take a look at this? BrandonYusufToropov 10:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Gender roles

Hey Tom, thanks for asking me to look at your article. I like it a lot, and the way it's written kept my interest all the way through. I have a couple of minor copy editing suggestions, so maybe I'll go into it tomorrow and just tweak it around a little (and feel free to revert if you don't like them).

In terms of content, it might be interesting to explore whether woman are regarded as equal before the law, as well as equal before God. For example, a woman alleging sexual assault must (as I understand it) be able to produce four male Muslim witnesses to the assault or risk being punished herself for making a false allegation. This means that Muslim countries tend to have very low numbers of reported rapes, of course. I know there are different schools of Islamic law, and so perhaps it would be too complicated to get into, but it's a widespread view among Muslim women's activist groups that the application of Islamic law often doesn't reflect the Qur'an's view of men and women as equal, though I know there's a debate as to whether it's the law at fault, or just the way it's interpreted.

In the clothing section, I'd suggest adding something about some of the extremism surrounding the modesty of women, and I'm thinking in particular of the girls in Saudi Arabia who were prevented from leaving their burning school because they weren't properly dressed. There was an uproar in Saudi Arabia itself over that, not just in non-Muslim countries.

I hope you don't mind me making these suggestions. Overall, I'd say it's a very good article. Thank you for writing it. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:54, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

You have a very good understanding of this subject. I just wanted to tell you that I read the article over and I like what you've done. I really don't have any time right now (really busy), but in the near future, in'shallah, I will be happy to contribute. Very good article; keep up the excellent work. --Anonymous editor 19:37, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

my revert

[16] I actually burst out laughing.  :-) I'm pretty sure you'll agree with me tho, that BYT would have reverted it himself, if he'd seen it first, and not viewed his doing so as a potential conflict of interest. A bit of the pot calling the kettle black, I know, since I've engaged in playful vandalism myself once or twice...  :-p Tomer ^TALK 11:51, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Al-Andalus

You keep replacing the POV tag, yet you have not commented on what you consider the remaining POV issues to be, even though I keep requesting it in Talk. I made changes to the sections you found objectionable, but I am not sure where to go from here. Please re-engage so we can wrap this up and get the tag removed. --Goodoldpolonius2 11:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Tom, thank you for your fast reverting of that horrible stuff from my talk page. I appreciate it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:21, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Beautiful!

Thanks so much! I do hope you'll consider joining the group ... we need (and are constantly on the lookout for) non-Muslims who are interested in and respectful of the deen. We want such folks to serve as a kind of counterweight to those who believe that only one way of assessing a given problem or issue can possibly exist. There is this mindset that says that if one disagrees about something, one EITHER holds one's tongue OR condemns the other as a kafir. I'm trying to promote as much dialogue with a model of tolerance and respect as I can. Hope you'll help! Again, many thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 14:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism continues on Rules of war in Islam. Somehow they think removing sections is a valid edit.

Restoring O'Reilly

You did not supply any reason for restoring Bill O'Reilly's wiki entry back to it's previous, ridiculously chaotic state.

Now the clean-up I gave it last week was major, but there was a ton of non-encyclopedic content to be purged. If you feel something vital is now missing, by all means make the necessary additions. But the condition it was in before was just silly. Wikipedia articles are for general overviews of a subject, and major news items. The O'Reilly article was turning into a blog about the man, updated with every controversial broadcast.

- Plastic Editor

Maria

Sorry man - ideologically sensitive edit wars are far and away the most time-consuming and least rewarding part of Wikipedia, and I can't afford the time right now. - Mustafaa 19:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the calendar's a great idea. I don't see any need for the Arabic names of the days of the week (and Yaum is just Arabic for "day"), but linking the festivals/events would be excellent. It's been done on ar: (eg for Ramadan.). - Mustafaa 20:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Months in Islam

Hey, at first glance that looks great!

At second glance, there's something wrong with the logo. The star and crescent are way too big.

That's all I can see now. Thanks for the work. Zora 21:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

You can add to it an explanation of the origin of the names of those months. i.e Why the arabs called them such. Shafi3i 22:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC).

Wow! You have done so much work....

It would be a shame not to give you a barnstar. Put on your page, when it is unprotected. Great work, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar, awarded by a.n.o.n.y.m ^t to Irishpunktom for spending so much time working on so many Islam-related articles including the Islamic months.

Because

Because I agree with the anon, it's not a horribly important news story. Maybe if we had, I dunno, a "Israel/Palestine Current Events" page. But a baby a month born in poor conditions does not really make it an important news story. Why did I use admin rollback? Laziness. That much I'll apologize for. --Golbez 18:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The role of the khalīfah

I noticed you were unhappy with the Sultan, who as Caliph was ruler over all Islam in the Köçek article.

But the Caliph article claims that he is the leader of the Ummah, or community of Islam and that the holder of this title claims temporal and spiritual authority over all Muslims.

So why is this claim "ridiculous Gibberish" under Köçek but not under Caliph?

While I am at it, I agree with you that the article on Pederasty needs more sources, as do most others, but I do not see how that leads to the NPOV tag you placed there.

Cheers, Haiduc 01:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we are both saying the same thing but talking at cross purposes. I never implied that the Ottoman sultan was temporal ruler over all Islam, that is patent nonsense. But any Caliph, Ottoman or not, is endowed with spiritual rulership over all Islam. That is what the caption was based on. What say you? Haiduc 03:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

PS I have started to fill in some of the info you requested in the Pederasty article but I am not sure if the footnotes are doing what they are supposed to do. If you know the ropes, can you take a look? Thanks, Haiduc 03:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

?! I thought the footnote simply linked back up and down within the article, so that by clicking on the number you went to the footnote, and then another click returned you to the text. I did not intend it as an outside link at all. This stuff spins my old head. Haiduc 23:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

21 Ramadan

I see you've added a {{disputed}} tag to this article, but have not explained why on the talk page. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Second the question. You can assert that it's disputed, but it doesn't do much good unless you show us some actual disputation. eritain 17:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation

I have blocked you for 24 hours for a 3 revert rule violation on Rules of war in Islam. Please don't do it again. -Splash^talk 14:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam

You have joined the revert war on Criticism of Islam started by User:Anonymous Editor, siding with Anonymous Editor in deleting about 9000 bytes of content that I added. Consequently the article has been protected. You have not explained your reverts in the talk page of the article - I invite you to engage in discussion in the talk page now. -- Zeno of Elea 23:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

2 x 22nd of Ramadan ?

Does Ramadan really have 2 days of "22" ? I don't think so, but your table on that page indicates so. I don't know how to fix it. Please help. Thanks. -- PFHLai 14:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the table. -- PFHLai 13:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Dhul-Qarnayn

Please stop vandalizing the Dhul-Qarnayn article. If you want to make a point, please use the talkpage. -- Karl Meier 15:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

More are more or less blanking the page without any justification mentioned on talk, so are very close to what is called vandalism. I suggest that you explain your self on talk before making any major changes. -- Karl Meier 17:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You have just made a claim that it's PoV, without giving any reasons. That is not a good excuse to blank a page. Anyway, I did respond to you on talk, and among other things reminded you to respect wikipedias policies regarding civility, and to aviod making bad faith accusations. Your rude attacks on named Wikipedians there is not appriciated. -- Karl Meier 17:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR violation.

You have been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violations on Template:WivesMuhammad. If you have any questions about this block, post them here, and I will reply to them as soon as possible. Ral315 W_S 20:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

what are you talking about... I did not break the 3RR. --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course you did. As you already know the diffs are available here, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Irishpunktom_2, and it is pretty obvious that you reverted to a previous version 4 times within 24 hrs. -- Karl Meier 22:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you tried to game the system, by reverting to another old version of the template that you liked. -- Karl Meier 22:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Happy Ramadan

Have a very happy Ramadan. Salaam, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Dhul-Qarnayn

Some help would be needed here .Farhansher 20:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ali Sina

You have just accused me of making a personal attack against you. [17] Can you please point out to me what I have written that is a personal attack, or avoid making any such false accusations? Another problem is that you keep readding original research into the Ali Sina article. The new editor has added some Ali Sina quotes that he believe "add substance" to the criticism against Sina. However, that claim is only based on his research and is not acceptable. The section should have criticism that has been raised against him from places outside Wikipedia and it should be referenced. If it is original research it cannot be allowed to stay. -- Karl Meier 19:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, as long as the material added is sourced accurately, like Irishpunktom did, I don't think there is any reason to remove the quotes. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that they are used to (as they user that added them said): "add substance" to the criticism that has been raised against him. If they "add substance" or not is a matter of opinion, and to use them as such is obvious original research. The critics should speak for themself, and we are not here to do research in order to "add substance" to their criticism. -- Karl Meier 19:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

What makes you think that they are "relating directly" to the criticism in this section? To say that they do that or that they add substance to the criticism is original research. If you can find a critic outside Wikipedia that has made that claim about these Sina Quotes, then it's much different, but what we got now is just a Wikipedian that claim that they add substance to the criticism -- according to noone but himself and his own research. As it is now, they should be added to eighter the views and believes section, the entry at wikiquote or they should be removed. -- Karl Meier 19:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Islamophobia

HI . I have added some links to the page . If any of you have time , that article needs to be expanded . With the passage of time , it has been shrunk to nothing. Thanks . Farhansher 01:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Muhammad callig.gif

Hey, pretty image... I don't want it to get {{no source}} tagged to it. Do you have a source and copyright tag to give? gren グレン 09:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by source tags. You just need to link the website or where you scanned it from or how you got it to show that it isn't copyrighted. Then you can add a tag from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags to put onto it as well to show what the source shows to be the image's copyright. gren グレン 09:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Ali Sina

Could you please explain this edit: [18], why you comment out what was there and then at the same time change the content that you are commenting out, so that it now seems like nonsens? What is your intention with that edit? -- Karl Meier 13:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

And at the same time, maybe you could explain why you find the forum.bismikaallahuma.org alexa rankings worth mentioning in the lead section of this article? It's doesn't seems important or relevant enough to me. -- Karl Meier 13:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree that it should be removed, and will do that myself later if nobody do it before me. However, to change the content into something much worse before commenting it out, is sort of strange in my opinion. It is also correct that usually comments on a internet forum is not a good source, but in this case, as a example of the death treats that has been made against him, I believe it's good enough. However, I don't see why it should be important with the alexa rank of this islamic forum in the lead section of this article. What is important is that death treats has been made against him, and the forum is an example of that. It doesn't matter what the ranking is, what matter is death threats has been made against him there. -- Karl Meier 14:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

"I would love to kill" (whoever) sound very much like a death treath to me, and one of the people there even commented "May Allah reward you for your intentions." Anyway, I can't see how it should be relevant to the subject of the death threats against him, which Alexa rankings the internet site they where made on has. Facts is that there has been made death threats against him, and the quotes is an example of that. The Ali Sina article is not about that islamic forum and it's Alexa rankings. -- Karl Meier 14:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay then, I still think it's a death treath, but to make it more clear I'll with another threat that is being made there: "I WILL MAKE SURE HE NEVER SPEAKS LIKE THAT AGAIN. I WILL KILL THE INFIDEL." The last part should be pretty clear. I'll also remove the alexa rankings at a later point because the article is about Ali Sina, and not that islamic forum and it's Alexa rankings. The death threat is relevant the forums rankings is not. -- Karl Meier 14:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It's clear that he mention Ali Sina as one of those infidels that he would like/love to kill. Anyway you still haven't made it clear why you think the Alexa ranking of the internet site that he made his treaths on is important. Would it make anything different if the death treaths was made on a site with a top ten ranking, or a ranking around number 10 million? The important fact is that there is people that threaten to kill him, and the Alexa ranking of the page where they make these threats doesn't matter. -- Karl Meier 15:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay then, I agree that we should just stick to the current version. I don't think the Alexa ranking provide the readers with much useful information, but as you obviously insist, I will not remove it. You should know that it doesn't matter to me if the ranking says 10 million or number 10, because what does the ranking of the forum matter? I don't think it makes any difference if he/she/it made the threats on a website with few visitors or a yahoo-forum with millions of visitors. The threat is the same. But the question doesn't matter much to me anyway. The current lead section is in my opinion acceptable. -- Karl Meier 15:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

STOP YOUR PAGE MOVES OF TIMELINE OF MUSLIM OCCUPATION OF THE IBERIAN PENINSULA

You need to discuss any proposed changes on the talk page and get a consensus. You are at this point only vandalizing the page .--Aesed 22:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Australian WWI Vet

I know that the Australian Navy is part of their armed forces. What I also know is that the BBC article on that guy said that he joined the Australian Navy NOT the Australian Army. Both are part of the Australian Defence Forces, but they are separate organisations. The Wikipedia article said that he joined the Australian Army. David Newton 21:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Ant ie

Thanks for the stub. ant_ie 23:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:WivesMuhammad

Why do you keep reverting without using the talk page? If you want to revert you are supposed to use the discussionpage. The other editors, including me, have left a lot of messages there that you haven't responded to yet -- Karl Meier 13:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for your support. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

OceanSplash

I saw the discussion going on at AnonEditor's RFA. My patience with OceanSplash has just about ran out. If he personally attacks anyone else I'm blocking him for 24 hours. Feel free to notify me if you see it first. freestylefrappe 01:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The Muslim Guild

I thought you might be interested in joining The Muslim Guild.--JuanMuslim 06:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi -- please take a look at this

It's quite important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam#A_brief_recap_--_please_read

BrandonYusufToropov 13:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

User page

Done. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

E-mail

Well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nothing new! I am just being here to ask you to send me sumfin via emai! Your stuff doesn't work and surely my stuff would work if u try! -- Svest 04:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

POV on Conversions article

I state well-known and well-sources facts. According to all four maddhabs, apostates from islam meet death penalty. Saudi Arabia and Iran have a death penalty for apostates. Stating those facts is not POV, it is valuable information. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 18:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

cheers

...but I'm User:Dbachmann. I assure you, I'm not trying to play sock or hide-and-seek, but I get bleeding logged out every other edit just now. I find it impossible to make a statement on a talkpage and sign it :( 83.79.181.171 19:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You are surely breaking all rules now

This edit is outrageous: [19]. Will you please start respecting the content of Wikipedia and stop that kind of disruptions to make your PoV points? Someone should file an RfC on you. Your disruptions, 3rr violations and personal attacks is really getting out of hand, and there will be plenty of diffs to present. -- Karl Meier 23:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I blocked Mier for 24 hours for his personal attacks. freestylefrappe 05:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR violation.

In accordance with 3RR, you have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. I'm watching this talk page; please leave any comments you might have here, and I'll try to answer them as soon as possible. Ral315 (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

sure

wish you would take a look at this [[20]]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Ramallite

Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Ramallite? I'm concerned with the POV expressed by some of the oppose votes. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Eid Mubarak to you and best wishes. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Season's greetings! BrandonYusufToropov 16:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Eid Mubarak and best wishes from my side . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 18:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Riots article

Zeno is up to his POV editing again. Yuber^(talk) 02:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Nikah

Its not me saying it, its Ibn kathir, Tabari and more... Read the article. I welcome any hadith or argument you have, it will educate both of us. And you i gratulate you on the eid and Salam to you to! --Striver 18:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_Mut%27ah#Qur.27anic_origin

im sure we will both benefit from a civiliced argumentation regarding the topic :) --Striver 18:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad

Hey, I saw your edits here. CltFn was right in reverting you because of the language you use, but, if you can find some notable source citing your beliefs then by all means cite it. If there is belief that he isn't who he says he is then likely someone has published it somewhere. However, you must back up something contentious like that. gren グレン 00:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

A user is trying to have the Template:Irish Republic infobox deleted. Your comments would be welcome. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)