User talk:ALM scientist

Archives

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 Wikipedia 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 ^talk 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

➨ ЯEDVERS awards this Barnstar to Ibrahimfaisal for reasoned, thoughtful production of ideas when asked for them in a debate that have helped me and others and have thus improved Wikipedia for everybody. 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 Wikipedia: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[1]. 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 Wikipedia 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/w/index.php?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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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^Talk 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 Wikipedia 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 ^{(smile back)} 18:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Article

Ibrahim, have a look at this [2]. 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\^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia) is given. Wikipedia-only permissions are not acceptable as they are not free in true sense of the word. As a free encyclopedia, 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 ^talk 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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, Bhadani present you the Minor Barnstar for improving Wikipedia. --Bhadani 16:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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 wikipedia 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 [3] --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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Avraham. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia 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

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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^Talk 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)

Sikhism not derivative of Islam

It is misconception that Sikhism is a syncretic faith from Hinduism and Islam. See Abrahamic religions and Dharmic religions- Sikhism is clearly Dharmic. The Guru Granth Sahib has compositions from a saints, some of which are non-Hindu. (Incidently, the Guru Granth Sahib also includes compositions from Ramayana and the Vedas). However these non-Hindu saints (e.g. Kabir) have complex beliefs deriving from both Bhakti and Sufism, and do not identify themselves as either Muslims or Hindus. For instance, they have written bhajans to Krishna. There is even an apocryphal story about Kabir that after his death his Muslim and Hindu devotees were fighting over his proper burial rites. (See Kabir). Further, modern Sikhism, as defined by Guru Gobind Singh and the practices he espoused were a result of the persecution that the Sikhs faced from the Mughals. That might not be entirely relavant here, but these practices (Sikhs are forbidden from eating halal foods), were intended to emphasise the difference. viv 06:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally believe you but we will need references to change Islam article. You give me references and I will change it. --- ALM 08:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Some references on Sikhism that back up what I said, and on Kabir (one of the major non-Hindu saints quoted in Guru Granths Sahib) that show his Bhakti influence. viv 19:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Stroup, Herbert. Four Religions of Asia. Harper & Row, 1968 (ISBN 0060677562)
• Hawley, John Stratton. Three Bhakti Voices: Mirabai, Surdas, and Kabir in Their Time and Ours. Oxford University Press (ISBN 019567085X)

I see that you have updated the Islam article with references for Guru Granth sahib having both Muslim as well as Hindu writers. What you don't mention is that these muslim writers reflected Bhakti, and not traditional Islamic viewpoints. Also, that Sikhism is a relgion in the Dharmic tradition: and not Abrahamic. This is crucial, as this places Sikhism out of the category of religions derived or related to Islam. Could you add text to that effect? Thanks. viv 18:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not updated that. Someone else might have done it. I need references that I can read myself and verify on this topic, only then I can change the article. I do not have time to do research on this topic and it is also outside my main area of interest. Please do those changes with references yourself. I hope if you change with references then other many people will support you. --- ALM 18:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to find references that can be read online (e.g. on Google Books). I was not able to edit the Islam article- got a message about only established users being able to do that. Any idea why that was happening? What do we need to do to be 'established enough' for Wikipedia? - viv 19:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see. Then I can do it on your behalf but if first I can check the references myself. I think establish user should have some number of edits. I do not know how much but you can ask some admin about that. Otherwise, try to search google with phrases like establish users wikipedia. --- ALM 09:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The angry Bahraini

The guy reverting all my edits is jumping from one anonIP to another to do so. He was revert-warring at the Rafida article and refusing to communicate with any of the other editors. I took the initiative to get the article semiprotected, so that anonIPs couldn't edit. He's now trying to get revenge. Sweet guy, huh? I deduce from his IPs and his edit record that he's a Bahraini Shi'a. Zora 10:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

He's reverting blindly, without even reading the articles, at least so far as I can tell. Strange, isn't it, that he's trashing Islam-related articles in the process? I've complained, at WP:ANI, but I don't think any admins are monitoring that right now. I need to go to bed, so perhaps it will be fixed in the morning. Zora 10:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Third Holiest Place

I agree that it doesn't read right and has really weird POV language ("raison d'etre of the OIC?!"). But just because the content is bad doesn't mean it shouldn't exist, no?

--iFaqeer 02:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Texas

No, I don't live in Texas. I'm not sure exactly what 200 Euros would be in dollars, but you might consider these cameras:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong7/ (might be too expensive; not sure)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons3is/ (should fit within your budget)

Both are good cameras, with both automatic and some manual controls. -- (unsigned comment from User:Moondigger)

Third holiest site in Islam

Salam.

I voted there but I guess we can achieve consensus if we change the name of the article. I can't find any article which contains description about Islamic holy sites.--Sa.vakilian 06:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That is okay with me but they are not letting us do that either. --- ALM 11:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mohammad yousuf.jpg

Hello ALM scientist,

I saw the image of Mohammad Yousuf which you uploaded, Image:Mohammad yousuf.jpg. Unfortunately, I don't think we can claim fair use on this image. It fails the first test on WP:FU, that "No free equivalent is available or could be created". Otherwise we could use any photo-agency celebrity picture, which is obviously not allowed.

I have put the "fair use disputed" tag on it, and I intend to nominate it for deletion in a couple of days.

Thanks,

Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: Do you have an alternative image? Or can you please find one? --- ALM 12:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, ALM. Unfortunately I don't have one, but that doesn't permit us to use photo-agency photos. Somebody who went to a cricket match could create one, for example, and that's enough to stop it being fair use. I know the article looks better with a photo in, but I'm afraid we just can't use commercial photos like that. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Your old username

Hi, I thought your old signature looked great, I see you were persuaded to change it. I beleive the guideline in question is WP:SIG which says Signatures that obscure your account name to the casual reader may be seen as disruptive.

I have seen many long standing users such as User:Nihonjoe use non latin characters beside the actual username. You can have something such as:

--- ابراهيم ALM 19:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

and I believe it would be inline with policy. Please tell me what you think. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, not every battle is worth the cost of fighting. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you once again :) --- ALM 17:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

delay

Hi there; if an article is going to take a long time to finish, and if you prefer to construct it in mainspace rather than in your sandbox on on a sub-page WP:SP, then if you add the template {{underconstruction}} at the top people will leave it alone. I cannot guarantee protection from vandals!--Anthony.bradbury 00:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That comment of mine was not for the vandels but for someone I requested for review. So that he waits for sometime until I finish it. It is because I need someone to check my English on the articles I create :). --- ALM 00:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS

Hi. I noticed you've deleted many parts of pages that discuss criticism of Islam claiming they are not legitimate under wikipedia's origional research policy (specificly faithfreedom and jihad watch). However, according to the WP:RS#Extremist Websites, it says "Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals and their activities. Even then they should be used with caution." It is acceptable to use these sites in the context they are being used according to this clause of the WP:RS article, since these sources are being used as primary sources to discuss the authors opinion only.--Sefringle 10:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

NO. That mean Hamas website can be used as reference in only Hamas page. Jihad watch can be used only in Jihab watch page. That what is mean from primary source. You are using them as secondary sources which is not at all acceptable. ---- ALM 15:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe you are incorrect, ALM. See Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Question about fringe site citations. For use as a source about the organization, even in another article, the organization's site is acceptable, if the statement is notable in the context of the target article. Secondly, I find it difficult to have Hamas held up as a legitimate political party when it is suitable, and an extremist organization when suitable. It is either on or the other I would think, no? -- Avi 15:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That means you want to allow him to use Jihad-watch and faithfreedom on Islamic article? Forget about Hamas that was an example and I do not mind if someone use them too. But the question is about using Jihad-watch, faithfreedom, answering-islam as references in Islamic articles. Please think carefully (and brief plz) before you answer here because I do not want to misunderstood you again. --- ALM 16:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No. I was just responding to Hamas. Jihad watch is not the same as Islamic Jihad, and as such, is more likely to fall under the "extremist" label. However, and this has nothing to do with the article you mentioned, there does need to be some form of objective standard for extremist as one person's extremist is another's mainstream. -- Avi 16:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW I support Hamas. Anyway, I will continue to revert changes he makes using Jihad-watch, faithfreedom, answeringIslam in Islamic article (even in criticism articles) because they cannot be used under wikipedia WP:RS as secondary sources (accept in their own respective articles as primary sources). If he continues to do that then I will try to report him to somewhere. --- ALM 16:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Youre supporting Hamas?Opiner 16:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not support killing innocent but support freedom of Philistine and anyone fighting for it. --- ALM 17:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is what it says (again):"Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals and their activities." Criticism of Islam qualifies as the activities of these individuals (faithfreedom, answering-islam, jihadwatch).--Sefringle 00:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No that does not qualify it. In that case Islam is also qualify under their activities? Muhammad article is also qualify under their activities etc. But it is not true. I will open and RFC if you continue to insist. Furthermore there are many pro-Islamic website that we never use here because they are not reliable and neutral. Just like you above mention websites. --- 09:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to use the websites that have a pro-Islamic bias too if they are notable. It does go both ways. You are also welcome to open an RFC on this issue if you choose to do so.--Sefringle 22:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

They exist only to criticize Islam. Of course Criticism of Islam qualifies as the activities of the authors on those websites. I fear the language barrier is not all that is to blame for your problems with this. Please, by all means, open an RfC, or you might incur a long block. Arrow740 09:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The abuser is back, with this language barrier abuse for 1000th time. How can someone like you or like to talk with you seriously when you cannot write a single message without abuses. Please do not leave any message on my talk page if you do not know how to behave. --- ALM 10:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to abuse you. You admit on your user page that your English isn't the best, and I was just assuming good faith. The "abuse" aside, you got my point, I think. Arrow740 14:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome HighInBC. I have full confidence on you and hope you will be a great admin. regards. --- ALM 16:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

help wanted

please help me with my articles on Muslims First Journey To America and Native Americans and Islam some islamaphobic people are destroying them7day 20:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC) mail me on madman_0014@hotmail.com7day 19:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Holiest sites in Islam

That's a much improved name I'd say. ;-) (→Netscott) 18:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a good name for an article. Unfortunately, the content of the present article doesn't correspond to that name very well. Perhaps it will prompt those who wish to write about the propaganda effort to discredit Al Aqsa as third holiest site to create a new article? --BostonMA ^talk 19:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I see User:Wikipidian is taking steps to bring the article in line with its new name... I don't think it'll take too long for the disparity to be rectified. (→Netscott) 19:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you guys for your support. I hope that we will change it contents together soon too. best regards. --- ALM 10:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comment

Thank you for wishing me well. With regards to a second mediation request, I am not opposed, but I am somewhat busy at the moment. May I discuss this with you again in a day or two? Thanks. Sincerely --BostonMA ^talk 21:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I can wait for a week and even more. --- ALM 14:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Toward the end of the last session of mediation I wrote [4]. I would very much like to know your opinion. --BostonMA ^talk 14:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

BostanMA I will reply soon. Sorry for the delay because I had couple of presentations to give... --- ALM 11:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Heads up

Heads up: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:ALM_scientist HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I laughed out loud when I read the report. --BostonMA ^talk 14:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My user page

Disagreements about content are not personal attacks, and I didn't make any accusatory comments, used racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious or ethnic epithets, used profanity, threats of legal action, threats of violence, threats of vandalism, or threats that expose other wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution. Enjoy, --Gabi S. 12:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

See talk page

See the bottom part of the talk page of the wiki project Islam before removing the list of Former Muslims: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam. If you take this list out again, I will seek Dispute resolution. Be sure to read all the discussion in talk and why that list belongs there, before you remove it again. --Matt57 20:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Becoming a member of the WikiProject Islam

Are you sure that is enough? Kkrystian 14:40 (UTC+1) 22 Dec 2006

Yes I am sure that is enough. However, you can add {{User WikiProject Islam}} (user-box) on your user page too but it is optional. It would be great to have your help, thank you for considering it. :) --- ALM 13:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have joined the WikiProject Islam and written a new article to it: Muslim view of salvation. At present it's only a stub. Kkrystian 17:57 (UTC+1) 22 Dec 2006

Dear friend, I am really happy to see the you decided to contribute. However, I do not think that it is the right concept of Islam (I am sorry). I will say someone with more knowledge to review the article. In case it is not right concept then we might have to undo it. You must use many books references to write things becasue people usually do not understand Islam very well. --- ALM 17:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have redirected it to Jannah article. The concept is much different as compare to Christianity. Read the introduction to get the differences. --- ALM 17:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Permission

Can I keep your name at my user page here [5]? --- ALM 14:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer if you didn't. -- tariqabjotu 14:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

May I ask the reason? You do not have to answer if you do not want to. --- ALM 15:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Riba

You may want to change "Riba" in your user page to Riba. I'll be glad if you could also expand the Riba article to include more information from various sources. I also think that "ribbit" should be mentioned (see Loans and interest in Judaism), at least in the "See also" section. Thanks, --Gabi S. 09:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I am very busy these day with work. However, I will keep that in mind. Thanks. --- ALM 14:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have change my user page as you have suggested. Next time you could change it yourself because I do not mind it. --- ALM 14:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

List of former Muslims is still there on the Project's page

You said the list had nothing to do with the project's page. Why have you left it there this time? Any reasons? --Matt57 22:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If you ask me truly then I had not deleted it because it bothers me. I deleted it because of your behavior, where you keep threatening people of mediation/dispute-resolution and filling your user-page with hostile things. Please try to rethink your attitude. Try to make friends around instead of enemies. We Muslims are not evil. I wish to have you as friend and wish to work with you. I do not wish to keep any bad feeling towards you (or towards anyone) and wish you also think very much positively. In San Jose, California mosque I used to find 2-3 new Muslim converts every friday so why your list should bother me (hence keep your list there). However, please be nice with people then they will be nice with you too. --- ALM 15:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to make enemies. You should have seen that all I want is to improve articles critical of Islam. Maybe you dont like that desire of mine but you should respect my viewpoint and only watch out for me breaking any policies. As long as I'm not doing that, you shouldnt worry about anything. Ofcourse I can "threaten" people with dispute resolution - what else do you expect me to do, if people keep deleting legitimate content? The list bothers you? Well, sorry. I'll say in the same way, the list of converts to Islam bothers me, maybe more. But, its related to Islam and everyone has a right to practice their own point of view. And thats what I was doing, putting in the list of former Muslims. That list is legitimate and you guys assumed bad faith when you removed it (its amazing how ALL of you Itaq and Striver did that). Either that, or you had no idea that this project page is nuetral. You should all see what you tried to do and why - it was simply wrong. Maybe this is not the only place where you guys do this, maybe its all over Wikipedia. This is an important incident and I think it shows what you guys try to do all the time - which is why I have it recorded on my user's page. And try to understand your own motives. Are you trying to silence legitimate Criticism of Islam? Thats wrong, sorry. You should allow everyone the freedom to practice their own point of view. The wikiIslam project page also is not to be a safe heaven for anyone. It should be nuetral and thats what I want to do.--Matt57 16:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I said that list does NOT bother me but I have removed it because I do not like your comments towards others. I never said that it bothers me. I explained above that why it should bother me when I personally know and meet so many people who had been converted to Islam.

Secondly, I do not understand that why you only want to work on criticism articles? Why not to work also on main stream articles as well as criticism article. Why that hostility towards Islam and Muslims? If you here to present things based on fact then I will always help you. However, work on BOTH criticism as well as non-criticism. --- ALM 16:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

ALM, you shouldn't need to worry about what User:Matt57 puts on his user page. the misleading/selective presentation of information probably says more to viewers about him and his approach here on the Wiki than it does of anyone he is seemingly attempting to incriminate. Matt, what "wikiIslam project page" are you talking about? ITAQALLAH 18:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

ALM, you wrote: I deleted it because of your behavior, where you keep threatening people of mediation/dispute-resolution and filling your user-page with hostile things. - well thats the wrong reason to delete content, dont you think so? What do you achieve by such deletions and actions? Not much. As to why I'd like to work on the Criticism articles and why not on some, thats just my personal choice as it is yours - our areas of interest. I have really not worked a lot on these though. The fact is that Wikipedia has no way of stopping Edit Warring and POV vandalism which puts me off. I believe a solution exists for that, but its alright. For now I'll focus on the project page (Itaq, its the main project page I talk about) and try to make it more nuetral. --Matt57 21:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Further mediation

Hi ALM Scientist, I saw your note on Talk:Muhammad regarding a new mediation [6]. I'm sorry that I hadn't taken any steps to find a new mediator. I am still hoping that you would respond to this comment. I do believe that it would be best to get an understanding based upon principles rather than a compromise which contains within it the seeds of a further dispute. I would very much like to know your opinion on it, and if we can come to some agreement on the aim of the mediation, I would be happy to participate, and or request a new mediator. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 16:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I lost my interest in that page because our mediator is gone. However, I will still try to gather energy and reply some day. Furthermore, I am busy these days in work too. -- ALM 17:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I can understand your losing interest in that page. Also, I apologize, because the link I gave you was to a comment that itself had a bad link in it. If you don't mind, I would like to repeat my comment, or at least part of it below. My concern is that a mediation should actually help to settle the dispute (at least for a while) and not merely be setting the stage to round up new editors to engage in conflict. I would very much like to avoid the mediation heading in the direction of such a compromise merely because it appears the easy way out. (I think it would only be easy in the short run). If you have the time and patience, please read my comment below and let me know what you think. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 17:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay I will reply within next 3 days In-sha-Allah. I hope that it will not be too late. :) --- ALM 17:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA weighs in

The central purpose of mediation is to help resolve disputes. As Zora points out, compromises that we reach here will only last until new editors become involved in the article. It is for this reason that I am skeptical that a compromise will be at all useful if it does not include a sound statement of the reasons for the compromise.

User:Proabivouac has suggested an:

"announcement at the top of the article that the article has been thusly censored".

I could not disagree more. Announcements such as these, as well as edit summaries describing the removal of images as "reverting censorship", or talk page comments describing agreements on the contents of article as "yielding to Islamic <fill in the blank>", are inherently inflammatory. If a consensus reached in this mediation will last only until new editors arrive, such language invites such new editors to become involved and attempt to overturn the decisions reached. In my opinion, a compromise which does not settle the question of censorship, yielding, and the like, is a compromise which will not provide a satisfactory settlement. If we can show with sound reasoning why the article should be one way or another, if we can point to policies and guidelines as the support for our decision, then we will be able to provide new editors some insight as to why they should not overturn our compromise. If we don't provide these new editors with appropriate insights, but instead present them with a compromise that seems arbitrary, a compromise that is described as censorship, or yielding to Islamic influence etc, then our compromise will have little value.

Although an attempt to reach a compromise at this point may seem the fastest way to resolve the conflict, I believe that spending more time clarifying the guidelines, will more than pay for itself in terms of conflict resolution. --BostonMA ^talk 17:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop taking away pics

ALM scientist now you are taking away the pic of Muslims reforming Umrah and why?[7] Never said anything on discussing just delete. Saying youre bringing back the pic vandalism. True but why? I heard some are against ALL pics of anyone no matter what are you believing this too? Even of the believers at the holy Kaaba?Opiner 08:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)