User talk:Matt57/Archive 2

thank for your answer

I am a little new in wikipedia so feel free to erase my comment after you finish to read. Anyway about the strory of moon God I have also mention it in the article of Allah and I think it is more important to write it there.If you can please write comment in the disccusion of Allah about moon and it source. Thank.Oren.tal 21:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Muslims involved in a crime

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Muslims involved in a crime, has been listed by User:Abnn for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslims involved in a crime. Thank you.--Sefringle 20:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to advise that I have speedy deleted this article. Listings of criminals broken down by their religious backgrounds (or lack of such background) are divisive, offensive, and unacceptable. Your contributions are appreciated but please focus them in a somewhat different direction. Newyorkbrad 21:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to your question on my talk. Newyorkbrad 22:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Aashish Khan

Thank you for your message. Ustad Aashish Khan and Aashish Khan (or Ashish Khan) is the same person. Ustad Aashish Khan has no son named Ashish Khan. Sarodiya 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ali Sina

Why do you warn me when you yourself engage in the same activity? --MomoShomo 01:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

According to my understanding of the policies here, it is not my job to convince you or anyone else that he is not notable. It is your job to convince the community that he is notable. Quite obviously, this has not been done since this character does not have his own article. MomoShomo 01:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced after seeing the sources. This is simply an "internet bias". He is an internet-only personality and of course his forum followers would vouch for his supposed "notability" on other online communities such as Wikipedia. MomoShomo 01:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would do that, but he doesn't have a page. --MomoShomo 01:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Which of these two pages do you want to gauge his notability by? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29 http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28web%29 MomoShomo 02:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done that now. MomoShomo 03:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a hunch MomoShomo is a sockpuppet. I just am not completely sure of who. Possibly Kirbytime.--Sefringle 04:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Turns out I was right [1], except he is a sock of User:His excellency.--Sefringle 21:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories

That was precisely my point. It makes no sense to have a page in a parent category when it is already in more specific categories. Use your common sense. Also you asked me to post about Ali Sina on the FFI page, and then you had a friend of yours close the debate. Please do not play games with me. MomoShomo 17:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Parvin Darabi links

I took a look at the link additions [2] and have a few comments. First, I don't mind the RGJ link where she is the primary subject, but the one about her book is best at the book's article (and it is), so I will remove that. Likewise I don't think we should link to the publisher's page for the book since this is the article about Parvin Darabi, not her book. That link is also better at the book's article (as it is), so I may also remove that link.

I don't think the picture and audio links should be included as they are sort of no-value-added. If we want a current picture, we should upload one and replace the old picture of her as her article is not yet at the point of needing two pictures. I'm still thinking about the speech. We already have a link to her official website so I don't know why we should arbitrarily link to one of her speech transcripts. People can just go to her website and get a ton of stuff. But I'm not yet sure so I won't remove it. Tell me what you think, such as what it is about this particular speech that it should be singled out for use in the external links section. I really am inclined to just link to her official site and leave it at that.

As for the Montreal Mirror, I've never heard of it. It doesn't look like an RS and the article doesn't seem very significant. I oppose its inclusion in the external links section.

Anyway, thanks for contacting me about the edits. The Behnam 15:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I attempted to get them protected, however I believe I was rejected. I am unsure how the protection process works exactly. Take care --Enzuru 20:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:HomaDarabi.jpg

Matt, I'm sorry for being so late, see my reply at User talk:Iamunknown#Opinion needed, thanks. --Iamunknown 20:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are cool

Concerning this [3], did you read your own talk page? I explained the removals already. The audio doesn't add anything as there is already a transcript of the text, and there is an audio link at the transcript's page. It is repetitive, unnecessary, and undue weight. Matt, you need to realize that just because some atheist circles find her impressive doesn't mean that she is so important to the whole world, and her article will reflect her importance or lack thereof. Wikipedia isn't her homepage; the audio is no-value-added. The Behnam 03:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why we need the audio when there is already a transcript of the same speech. Now I will explain why it is repetitive. It is repetitive because it is just a repeat of the words of the transcript. The transcript is more useful as it can be run through translators, re-analyzed easily, copied, etc. The Behnam 17:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• "The audio is not repetitive because the emotions of the speech and the way the words are said cannot be laid out in text" - We aren't here to affect people emotionally with her views because of the NPOV policy. It is further repetitive because the audio link is easily accessible from the transcript page anyway.
• "There's no rule which says if we have the Text link, we should get rid of the audio because its repetitive" - You are the one who wants this content, so you need to demonstrate the appropriateness and need for these things. You haven't done so yet but I am happy to work with you on it.
• "If that was the case and if you think an audio is just a repetion of text, why do we have Spoken articles" - We have spoken articles to help the impaired or learners with Wikipedia articles, not to promote the 'emotion' of external speeches. For more info, please see [4].
• "Further, you also deleted the picture link as well. Could you also explain that" - Please see my previous post here about that. Do you read my responses on your talk page in full? I've addressed a lot of these things already.
• "I'm sensing that you strongly disagree with Parvin's views or what she stands for but that is not any reason to delete important information abot a person, especially when the article is already a stub" - This violation of WP:AGF has been noted. Please AGF. I don't know why you sensing this. I'm just working against NPOV and undue weight here; I don't know many specifics about her views. I'd probably disagree with some of them but that isn't relevant. Yet you think I'm pushing an agenda? Why do you think this? As the saying goes, "a thief knows a thief."
• "You deleted a link from the Montreal Mirror too claiming that its not notable etc. Again, do not delete anything relevant again from this or any other page simply becuase you dont like their views." - As I mentioned before, this appears to be a minor newspaper with a crude website. The paper itself seems quite POV, and as I mentioned, I don't support relegating fringe or minor POV works to the external links section.

Now for something you never addressed. We already have a link to her homepage. A reader can visit this homepage and see all of the speeches they want. I asked you to tell me why we must single out this speech. Linking a speech for the heck of it is a bad precedent that could escalate to including an overwhelming number of external links, such as a link to everyone of her speeches or something like that.

Some things to keep in mind are WP:EXTERNAL and WP:NOT (such as not repository of links, no excessive linking). There is no need for us to include the audio link when it is accessible from the transcript page. Likewise there is no need to link to that speech when it is an accessible part of her official website. Also, we shouldn't have links that promote a website, so unnecessary linking to her personal page should be avoided. The Behnam 18:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the RGJ link is inappropriate under the WP:EXTERNAL#Links normally to be avoided criterion "Links mainly intended to promote a website." The Behnam 18:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Montreal Mirror "claims" that number of readers. As an alternative weekly with a website that isn't even fully functional, I doubt that it is an appropriate site to include as an external link. Generally external links must also comply with RS requirements which this paper, on account of being an alternative weekly and having a crude website, amongst other things, may not meet.

That "review" at RGJ is promotional in nature because of its strong and unquestioning POV in addition to directing readers to her foundation. It doesn't meet requirements. Please rely upon a guideline or policy-based argument in response this time. Thanks. The Behnam 19:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah and don't freak out if I don't get back to you on Parvin for a little bit. I'm kind of tired/bored of that particular dispute but I will get back to it in the near future. Have a good one. The Behnam 19:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jerry klein.jpg

Hello, Matt57. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Jerry klein.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Matt57/Jerry Klein. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 10:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Montreal Mirror

I also read that source earlier. I'm not sure if the AAN is reliable as it may seek to promote such papers. It is also not clear where that information is taken from, such as how did they obtain that information. That's why I didn't put it in the article, though I won't object for now as it appears to be relatively harmless. The Behnam 19:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, AAN is not a reliable source because it is promotional. Consider its goals [5]:

• "Supporting the marketing and advertising efforts of member newspapers" - It is trying to promote its members.
• "Advocating the interests of the industry" - LOL, plainly admitting that it is promotional in nature.

Presenting the member (in this case Montreal Mirror) as reliable, legitimate, popular, etc fits perfectly into this promotional goal. We can't trust this too much, especially since we cannot verify its claims. There ya go. The Behnam 19:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. A site dedicating to promoting its members is not a reliable source on its members. Sorry. The Behnam 20:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"So whats your point? How does this connect to Parvin Darabi" - Is it supposed to connect? I just did some standard editing at that article after you wikilinked it to me. You apparently had objections and hence our dispute. I tried to keep the disputes independent which is why I gave them separate sections here. Anyway, if you realize now that a promotional group isn't an RS in this situation please undo your edits at Montreal Mirror. Thanks. The Behnam 20:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Like I said, the AAN is a RS for the Montreal Mirror" - How is it a reliable source? You need to provide a nullifying response to the arguments I have presented. I don't see you as having any; the promotional goals of that Association are stated plainly in their About page. You know, there is no shame in backing down when you are in the wrong. In any case it may still be possible to get a better source for that article. Cheers. The Behnam 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Request re AN/I comment

Hi Matt. Could you please remove the parts divulging personal info from this comment at the AN/I? I believe it is part of WP:CIV#ICA. It is just called "appearance of impropriety". Thank you in advance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont know why that should be removed, this is actually information that should be made public fo the safety of kids, not hidden. But I removed it now since its not a big deal. The link to the applying CIV policy didnt work. Could you give that again? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Matt. Really appreciated. I fixed the link now. It was missing an A.

Well, you think about the safety of Kids which is a good thing. But this is Wikipedia and not a charity and Wikipedia cares alot about legal issues. I've just removed some personal info from my talk page today which have been made by a son against his father. Well his father had done worse yesterday and was blocked by an admin indeed. Wikipedia is not a battleground Matt. I know you know it and that you are not ignoring it but things like this happen and can be corrected for the good of every user here. Cheers. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Faysal, you are a good person. I try to be as cooperative as possible. Thanks for the story, I should be thankful to have a nice father. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

MomoShomo

Hi Matt57. Thank you for working so hard on the alphabetization over at List of notable converts to Islam. By the way, I have a question since you've been around here for a while... MomoShomo is obviously not a new user. I remember reading somebody's comments (maybe it was ALM) saying that the user admitted to having sockpuppets. Do you have any idea who MomoShomo might really be? MomoShomo came out of nowhere with two edits on May 13, then has been editing up a firestorm ever since. This user used a "sophisticated edit" (as Aminz would say) [6] and I still haven't figured out how to do that kind of revert edit. SO tell me- who who who is this mystery editor? --ProtectWomen 07:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping on top of this, Matt57. Again, I am always impressed by the work of Tom Harrison. --ProtectWomen 06:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Homa Darabi

Thanks for putting the information in the right place. I'll keep an eye on both articles from now on. The Behnam 16:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

His excellency is back

User_talk:Habibz -- this is one problem user who is on one serious Wikipedia jihad. --ProtectWomen 19:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In case you didn't know

For citing sources in the future, you can use the Wikipedia:Citation templates.--Sefringle 04:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

♥ Thank U ♥

Thanks for standing up for me recently. The times are much better now than they were years ago, but there is still a lot of prejudice against the gay community. I've been very offended lately by a few users and notice that you and others help me feel like there are straight people who understand. I REALLY appreciate it. You're an atheist? well, may the flying spaghetti monster bless you ;-) --ProtectWomen 18:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :d. Glad to be of help. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: David York

I left a note at the administrator' noticeboard about it. -- John Reaves (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Before I reply, can you clarify what you meant by this? "I've always had some questions in my mind about you but after seeing that you personally contacted Mr. Hasan to retreive his picture and insert the non-notable opinions of this really unknown user with no authority on Islamic matters (needless to say graduate assistant doesnt count), my questions were answered." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, before I reply, could you say what you meant by the above: "I've always had some questions in my mind about you but after seeing [etc] ... my questions were answered." What were the questions, and what was the answer? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My question was basically whether you were impatial to the subject of Islam, but it looks like you're not, but thats alright, neither am I. Either way, our opinions dont matter here, our edits do. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Content was not deleted

Instead of a silly picture with an extremely large message, I moved the text into the rest of the writing and deleted the picture. No content except a random picture was deleted. All the text was still there, so please think (and read) before you accuse me of something. --Enzuru 04:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now it's about the picture, but yet in the reversion I see "(RV for deleting "black dog is evil" hadith)". I didn't take that ahadith out, so it seems after accusing me of something you change the reason that the picture was the issue, not the text. Like I said before, I took it out because having a small picture with tons of text that could just be merged into the body was ridiculous. However, perhaps I should have just kept the picture. Either way, it seems you've expected me of some religious zealousness. --Enzuru 04:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

FFI image

I noticed you uploaded the FFI screenshot [7]. However, in my opinion, it would be better if we had the main page screenshot, rather than the news page screenshot.--Sefringle 08:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation

Please add a full citation for your source. We need the publisher, and without knowing which edition, we don't know what page 53 refers to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please say which edition. The hardback and paperback versions will have different page numbers; no reason readers should have to track it down themselves via the ISBN number. Which version did you take the quote from? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, its paperback. I got this ref from Google books, by the way. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

But that's not what the quote says in the Rees book. It also makes clear that Rees thinks the date is wrong. Is there a reason you didn't correct the edit? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I didnt notice he wasnt sure about the date. I was about to RV to your original version when I saw you did the needful. thanks a lot. I'm amazed at how much you work for this website. I saw a show on TV about ants and how industrious they were. It was about Siafu ants. There you go, you're a Siafu ant, carrying little bits of information here and there. But yes seriously, it is just unbelievable how much work some editors put into this website. It really is like an ants colony, except not all of the ants work equally hard (like me). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FFI-logo.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:FFI-logo.png. I notice the image 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. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 06:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Islamophobia

All sorts of neologism problems with this phrase, all the fault, IMHO, of who's ever job it was to come up with an English -ism word for Islam by now, which every other major religion has (except Christianity in toto, but the large sects all do). Not an edit war I'd care to by involved in! -- Kendrick7^talk 19:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC on User:Mike18xx

Hi Matt. As you have participated at the ANI discussion regarding the behaviour of the abovementioned user, i just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on themselves in response to the concerns raised during the discussion at the ANI and their avoidance to solve the issue. The RfC is located here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify things Matt. I've never dealt w/ Kirbytime problems. I am almost 90% away from articles you use to edit guys. At the opposite, this user and i have been directly involved in a discussion at an AfD when meatpuppeting occured. In Kirby's case i was for a 6 month block at the case at the ANI thread before shifting to indef. Don't you remember my stance at Kirbytime's case? So there's no big similarities in there. I honestly believe i treated both cases fairly. All i've been asking from this user is to acknowledge his wrongdoings and promise no to do them again.

Now, after being away for a couple of days, this user came back and continued editing as nothing have occured. This is wikipedia and we got rules. He seems not to be aware of how things work here. I've asked him twice to comment on his faults but in vain. So what do you want from me to do? Smile? If i have had blocked him on the spot after the MEAT and the CIVIL stuff than you'd have been argued that i was unfair to him. No, i've asked him to acknowledge them and give us a promise. He abstained and ignored calls. So, i've opened an RfC instead in order to hear different arguments but telling me that Mike18xx has stopped and that my RfC filling is not proper than i must totally disagree. I gave him many chances to continue commenting at the ANI. Didn't i? I've just blocked a vandal yesterday indef after a request from a user i totally disagree w/. And please tell me Matt, has Mike18xx really discussed why he MEATed and INCIVILed at the ANI? No, never. So why wouldn't he do that at an RfC? Cheers. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont think people have to say "Ok, I'll stop". They just have to stop the disputive behavior though so I think Mike has stopped. I agree making that thread on a forum he made may be questionable, but does it really violate any policies? I didnt see any policy that prohibits doing this on external sites. [8]. If there's any policy like that and Mike violates it repeatedly, then I support action. I've supported the ban of DavidYork and I even went on to say that I'm going to hunt this guy's sock puppets even though some of his edits on Islam were very good (in my opinion), but I supported his ban (after I found out that he likes Hitler and fought to keep a picture of the Swastika on his user page). About Kirbytime, well, consider your mild support for blocks for someone who was a completely vicious expert troll, and your over-reaction to a mild personal attack by Mike (middle eastern). Tell me if thats consistent. I would have really liked if you brought the hammer down on Kirbytime 10 times harder than you did on Mike18xx but I didnt see that happen. I didnt even you see you clarify other people's (Aminz, BlessSins) surprised comments like "I dont know he was blocked, he was a good editor". I didnt see you respond to these people and tell them why Kirby was a troll or why he was blocked, didnt see you help out the blocking admin there. I think this is bad faith cause you know it seems to me that maybe your nominations/actions were atleast partially based on the editor's view of Islam, rather than what they actually did. But anyway, I think the bottomline again is, that mild personal attack by Mike is not enough for an RfC although it does seem that after this RfC, he'll likely stop even those mild attacks, which ofcourse is always good. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The personal attack has not been an issue for me and i already stated that at the ANI. I just don't care. But due to his blocklog history, he's already been blocked because of that and so mentioning the violation is worthy for the RfC. Single acts may be considered as not important. However, meatpuppeting mixed w/ personal attacks plus abstaining from acknowledging them is a big issue. Remember Proabivouac words at the ANI. I've been more than patient. I think the issue is sorted out. I've answered at the RfC talk page. Cheers mate. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In the past 9 months, he's only been blocked once. Thats pretty good. All his other past blocks were before that in the beginning. It looks like he's more aware of the policies now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you are kidding me or just being mislead Matt. He's been away for the same amount of time (exactly 9 months). You should have said that he only was blocked once this month to be accurate. Anyway, things are sorted out for now. Forget about that. Another admin beat me to block the sock of Kirby. There was no need for an ANI. Socks of banned users are blocked on the spot w/o needing to inform the ANI. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh really, well, I honestly didnt know he had been away in all those months. I see it now, yes. Well, after all these blocks and an RfC if a user still doesnt know how to abide by policies and keep editing here, they'll get what they deserve then and I'll definitely support such a block. Anyway, good to know that its been sorted now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I just don't understand how you have defended his case all this time since a month now w/o paying attention to very important and essential details such as his blocklog and the edit summaries of the blocking admins. If you have just spent 1 minute (no more) verifying my allegations you'd have endorsed my summary at the RfC or saved us some time at the ANI. Again, forget about it and happy editing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

problems with Ibn Shah and List of notable former Muslims

hey just a heads up, keep an eye on this guy will you?I see you dealt with him in the past. anyway he deleted many of my entries which were SOURCED and claimed I was a vandal. In fact due to his accusations I was blocked! The man can't stand anything that can remotely be taken against Islam! He's taking everything on that page as a personal attack! Yo I'm out good luck dealing with him. EuroBrydGang

Fareed Zakaria

Regarding my removal of information from the Fareed Zakaria article concerning the subject's alcohol consumption...

Although I wrote my thoughts on the matter here prior to actually making changes to the article (back in, ahem, January), they explain my opinion regarding the inclusion of the "alcohol related facts". I am happy to continue discussion on Talk:Fareed Zakaria. -Grammaticus Repairo 20:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

List of notable converts

Hey, got your comment. In regard to the line in question, while that information is important and a big issue on that individual's article, the information is also a contested allegation and not fact. The list should just contain what is publicly known to be confirmed, not just accusations. Regardless, that is just one issue with the article; there's more that could be cleaned up in the way of summaries of the individuals. Thanks for the concern though, look forward to working with you. MezzoMezzo 01:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who BlessSins is but I hope your issues with them are resolved shortly. As for the allegations, yes, it is true that he was accused. You have to admit, though, that using that as the man's summary (and thus his primary source of notability) is a bit damning. It's also not the only controversial issue, as you'll find if you check out his page. Give it some time and think about it and i'm sure you'll agree, a general description rather than one specific (and a rather negative one at that) is a bit more appropriate. Have a great evening, and let me know if you need anything else. MezzoMezzo 04:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The negative stuff is why he's gotten so much news coverage. Arrow740 05:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly- it seems that his notability depends entirely on these 'accusations' in the first place.--C.Logan 05:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you have misunderstood my statement. As I already confirmed, yes, he has been accused. I am not contesting the accusation; he has, however, upheld his innocence in regard to the specific accusations. While an encyclopedia should provide all available information and not take sides, the fact of the matter is that nothing has been proven. That was my point: he has been accused, and not found guilty of anything yet. In addition, I did acknowledge that he is known for supposedly preaching hate in addition to the accuasations of terror links - in fact, your pointing that out supports one of my other points, that the terror link issue isn't all that he is controversial for. Take a deep breath for a moment and dwell on that and you'll see that our positions actually aren't that far off; I don't disagree with anything you just said. My position is simply the summary of him on the notable converts page should be general and not specific. MezzoMezzo 16:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So could you present a more favorable version of the text, so that we might decide to agree or disagree on specific phrasings? We have to remember that this man's fifteen minutes depend entirely on 'accusations', whether they're true or not. Many individuals find fame by being falsely accused. Therefore, I'll certainly agree to a more general presentation, depending, of course, on how it turns out. So, can you give a rough draft?--C.Logan 16:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even notice Logan's comment there. I could do that, though I will need everyone else's input (that includes you Matt, I haven't seen much activity from you lately, are you there?). I posted a bit on the talk page for the article itself. MezzoMezzo 05:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

List of notable converts to Islam

You and MezzoMezzo have been edit warring here lately (recent reverts: [9] [10] [11]). Please see WP:EW and try dispute resolution to discuss the conflict instead of constantly reverting edits you disagree with. You might want to try WP:RFM if the discussion isn't working. Cheers. Dmcdevit·t 04:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, BlessSins like him is also removing important information which me and others have to keep restoring. We've explained on the talk page and continue doing so. I'll try to explain more to them now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Dont put in tags without discussion

Read my edit summaries when I add the tags.Then you'll know.-Vmrgrsergr 18:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

---

I made my point.In the criticisms of Judaism artile, they removed "God's chosen people" and the killing of Jesus.So I explained it briefly in my edit summaries that if they can remove key critical information then it must have the same standards here.If my explanation is brief then an edit summary will do just fine.But regardless if information that sounds unneutral to jewish editors on Criticism of Judaism article can be removed then we must do the same for Islam article to make it all neutral.-Vmrgrsergr 21:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

controversy

what is controversial about Kaaba, except there was a content dispute on it recently? we don't make pages dedicated to selecting articles on which there are content disputes there so we can advertise them to a highly limited audience. i'm certainly not sure how an SPA dedicated to glorifying Sina learned of that taskforce or to advertise non-controversial topics on that page. likewise, what's controversial about Jannah, or Black Stone?? ITAQALLAH 22:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

so basically the page is there to attract a limited audience (how many people out of the total wiki-community do you think actually look at this page?) to intervene in content disputes of your choosing. see WP:CANVASS. if you really wanted to inform the community at large about content disputes, you'd be using the main page of WP:ISLAM. ITAQALLAH 22:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

your response is a classic example of wikilawyering i'm afraid, suggesting it's legitimate for one to say "I can canvass because it's not being done on a user talk page!".. the spirit of the policy is that you aren't supposed to solicit intervention in an inappropriate manner. all pages here are public, Matt, yet WP:CANVASS still exists, and applies to public pages. the audience is limited, because only those who are willing to go through x number of subpages are likely to find it, or they will need to have been linked to the page directly (the more likely scenario, and i suspect this is how the SPA IP got there). what do you think RfC is for? ITAQALLAH 22:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

if you're going to present an analogy, please ensure it is logically sound. my archive page, which is not continually updated, and not used or intended to solicit intervention in current content disputes, is completely irrelevant here. ITAQALLAH 22:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

that page isn't being used to advertise current content disputes. ITAQALLAH 22:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

you are advertising content disputes to solicit intervention, because you are including articles solely on the basis that there is a current content dispute on it. deletion sorting has nothing to do with content disputes. ITAQALLAH 22:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"I'm creating a watchlist for articles I want to watch" - you already have a watchlist. i'll see what other editors think about this page. ITAQALLAH 22:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

i know the difference between a public and private watchlist - but it contradicts what you said earlier "I'm creating a watchlist for articles I want to watch." anyway, i don't recall putting the taskforce up for AfD, and it might be the case i don't nominate this one either - it might just be a good idea to turn it into a general WP:ISLAM page listing current content disputes. i suppose we'll see. ITAQALLAH 23:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• a distinction needs to be made between articles on which there are content disputes, and articles whose topics are `controversial`. for the former, i propose they be relisted here so it is easily viewable by more people (this template is transcluded onto the front page of WP:ISLAM). ITAQALLAH 19:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

so what do you think? ITAQALLAH 14:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

if you have no problem with it (as indicated by your silence), i'll go ahead and make the changes. ITAQALLAH 17:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Noo, ok. Look, the POV disputes doesnt show recent changes, recent activity. See this? Another recent vandalism attempt. Yes, please dont take out articles from that list. If you want, you can create your own watch list. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"the POV disputes doesnt show recent changes" - yes it does, and it would be even more effective once we move over the relevant articles. why are you so against giving the articles you've listed on the other page greater exposure? your list shouldn't be for advertising ongoing content disputes, especially when only a limited audience will know of it. like the other watchlists, it should only be for article topics of a specific nature. ITAQALLAH 23:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Does not the link you gave also "advertise content disputes"? What problem do you have with this extra watch list? Its not doing any harm. Please spend your time and mine over more useful stuff. Its not gonna work, trust me. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

there's a difference between an easily/widely accessible watchlist (see deletion sorting), and a remotely accessible watchlist. it is of especial concern when the majority of the community is not aware of the list, yet obscure, single purpose IP accounts are (especially when these are what appear to be FFI cronies, no doubt they had been given the link to the watchlist) - and even using it to advertise their own content disputes. furthermore, it's not the appropriate use of the page to add pages that aren't actually topical to the taskforce. i don't see what the problem is with giving disputes greater exposure to the wider community. i guess we can try another RfC if you'd like. ITAQALLAH 23:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You're doing what you want to do and I'm telling you, its not going to work. Not true: "it is of especial concern when the majority of the community is not aware of the list". The watchlists are present for anyone who is interested at the project's home page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam#Task_forces. Go do the RfC. I'll then make up 10 of my own different watchlists within my username. Is there a policy prohibiting creation of a watchlist with selected articles? If not, your RfC will fail, sorry. Go ahead, try your best. See you there at the RfC. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Emails to users

You have apparently sent some emails to many users about some Islam issues. This is not correct use of Wikipedia. Please cease from doing so. David.Monniaux 07:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how did you find out?--Sefringle^Talk 07:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My email must have been forwarded on to him.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Orphaned non-free image (Image:FFI screenshot.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:FFI screenshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

WRT your comment...

...actually, since all of that is on a separate sub-page, I don't get notified when someone adds their comments, so the "limelight" is completely lost. 68.39.174.238 18:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

your edit to Intelligence Summit

Regarding this edit -- your explanation that the image is fair use is nothing short of bizarre. I had restored the image in my last edit. Your edit didn't just restore the image; you deleted several paragraphs of relevant and sourced content without any explanation. Please restore the content immediately. I will not delete the image. Thank you. csloat 15:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Now that I look at it, it was relevant 3rd party criticism of the Summit and it does belong in the article, my bad. I should have explained my edit summary better or only rv'd the infox move. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Islamophobia

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. ITAQALLAH 20:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The banned user

I think it was actually Kirbytime based on this edit. Arrow740 08:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Summit-logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Summit-logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)