Archives

1, 2

User:Ibrahimfaisal/commons

Salams, there is an RFC on user KazakhPol, here [1], please contribute, he seems to want to label every muslim groups as terrorist, and violates this a lot: Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism uses the word terrorist in the narrative voice. Aaliyah Stevens 11:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sister, I am busy these days. But will try to visit there as soon as I have some free time. Wassalam. --- ALM 11:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Its better to be banned by speaking the bitter truth than being abused by so cheap people. But anyway, I would keep this Qalenderanna thinking to myself. :D VirtualEye 12:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How am I cheap? Arrow740 17:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow740 it is over and old story. Leave it alone. --- ALM 17:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ha ha. I liked Qalenderanna thinking to myself. --- ALM 12:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you ultimately decide to stay, but I understand. Of course it is up to you, and I respect your decision. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still hopeful that mediation decission will be to keep the link on the top and picture in depiction of Muhammad article. I still believe that there are more good people around. --- ALM 15:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I hope from Tom Harrison to not to use his stick of "Might is Right" and think how much valid are the arguments opposing picture and how much lame multiple posts based on single vocal of supporting picture in an article when there are thousands of articles without picutes.

Nobody answered my Challenge yet people are fummbling around to conclude by themselves. (well what can you call a person who is just trashing all the talks of months and sends a post self-confirming to conclude the support to picture). VirtualEye 15:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, it is obvious newcomer vandalism. It was the users only contribution, put in the wrong place, unsigned, flame-inducing, and added nothing to the discussion. Edits like this have been deleted in the past; I don't understand why this one is any different. I left a message on his talk page telling him how to properly post. --Hojimachong^talk_con 20:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First do not BITE newcommer even if they are wrong give them some air to breath. Otherwise we will lose many after their first edit. Secondly, I have no idea that how can it be abviously a vandalism. It was unsigned and in capital alphabets otherwise it is a oponion. We can disagree with that but it was not a vandalism. --- ALM 14:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim, as you are likely aware, I fully respect Muslim folks and their beliefs. The society that I know best holds true the idea that all beliefs are equal and that all views can be expressed equally. Unfortunately this view is severely at odds with many societies in the world and in this particular case many Muslim societies . As you have surely noticed, I have not at all been active in the Muhammad image mediation process and I will explain to you why: It is difficult for me to harmonize my views and passion for complete freedom of expression with my strong desire to respect Muslim folks who through submission do not share this view. To be perfectly honest with you I would very much like to see a bodily representation of Muhammad displayed on Wikipedia at the top of the article about him. As things stand now it almost feels as though there should be an article for each signifcant view of Muhammad : Sunni views of Muhammad, Shi'a views of Muhammad and Non-Muslim views of Muhammad and then let the Muhammad page be a disambiguation page to each significant view and let the editors for those different articles decide what is best. There are so many strong competeing views about this that I don't see how they will all be rectified in the space of one article. (→Netscott) 21:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that in Muslim society views are not expresses equally. But I think there is no Muslim society exists in the world (those are societies of backward ignorant people not based on Islam at all) and what you hear in media is propaganda against Islam. I also believe that USA has much less freedom of speech as compare to Pakistan. It is based on my personal experiences. For example I talk again Musharraf all the time and talk against Army etc. Nothing happened with me but in USA I talked against Iraq war and they started profiling me in a very bad way (details cannot be told without putting my family security in danger). May be some day I write my ordeal in detail at my user page if I decided to leave wikipedia. Wikipedia is another example of non-tolerance of those who call themselves tolerant. However, I respect your views even if I do not agree with them. I do not think there is dispute between shia and Sunni to create two articles. Then why you wish to have two articles for them? Aminz, Striver, Bahi_Saab they all are my very good friends even being Shia, we might have some difference of view but we all tolerate and compromise with each other. It is totally different as compare to secular people here. --- ALM 14:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I think Netscott did not read my recent message where I provided 3 conditions to include image which are very much valid but not being accepted due to people's reservations about Muslim editors. VirtualEye 15:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And ALM ! I just uploaded an example picture which is more appropriate than those you refered. One picture is on fire and other one has the angles as the women. But the picture I uploaded at least gives some human view and not supernatural type. I hope you understand but I welcome your view. VirtualEye 15:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that anyone attempting to edit articles on Islam would have at least a decent understanding of its core principles. Thank you for your note. I appreciated it very much. (→Netscott) 20:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ALM, I have corrected grammatical errors on your user page, according to your old version which invited helpful changes. No offense is intended; feel free to revert them.[2]Proabivouac 09:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ALM, it's me again. All I'm asking is for you to allow Alecmconroy to give his opinion without you editting it in the middle, such that one cannot tell from reading even who said what. Just rebut what you wish to rebut in your own paragraph(s), okay?Proabivouac 10:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have signed here in front of my comments. Hence STOP removing them. --- ALM 10:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, relax, I'm not trying to censor you. Here's the format I came up with which you can post if you like:

Responses to Alecmconroy

• Re Image:Maome.jpg

FALSE Information to end user (reply by User:ALM_scientist)

Muhammad use to wear freaky BLUE clothes which are not allowed in Islam

Sahabah used to wear freaky RED clothes which are not allowed in Islam.

Muhammad used to sit above others which is not true.

Sahaba used to wear freaky pursian red hats. No one can ever imagine that it is possible.

Women used to sit in the crow amoung Sahabah which is not true.

Muhammad and Sahabah used to be wealthy and use to wear new clothes. Not true.

• Re Image:Muhammad at Kaba c.png

FALSE information to end Reader

Muhammad was viewed as someone who communed with the supernatural or the divine. NOT True. He was just a human.

• Re Image:Muhammad 2.jpg

FALSE informaton to end Reader

Muhammad as Prophet putting stone to Kaaba. NOT TRUE

If you like this, just post it with your sig. Regards,Proabivouac 10:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Setences like "One must hate secularism as much as possible." are inappropriate for a userpage. In general, one gets the feeling that you mainly utilize your userpage to advocate against secularism. Please mind WP:SOAP and amend the page accordingly. Beit Or 13:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let any admin delete it. I am not going to do it myself Peacher. You can also post it on ANI. Thanks. --- ALM 13:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, any editor can remove polemic statements from a userpage, but it is polite to ask first so the user has a chance to do it themselves. To quote Jimbo: "...using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea"[3]. It does look a lot like you are campaigning a point, and even attack those who believe in secularism. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fine line. How you decide it is attack. A userbox says something like that "This user think coffee in large quantity is necessary". I do not like coffee should I feel that it attack against me. If someone say he is Muslim but people do not like Muslims so what. We all have different kinds of like and dislike. I do not like people getting High and cannot stand people who are high. Can you please change your user page for me? --- ALM 19:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The key fact is you are encouraging people to hate. I am not encouraging other to do anything. Do you really think my userpage is a problem or is this just a counter example? ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-:) obviously a counter example and I have no problem at all with it. I am going to change my user page. Tell me if it fit or not. --- ALM 19:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am not saying it is entirely in line with the spirit of WP:U, but I am satisfied. Peace. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay. -- ALM 19:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't worried. I think everyone around here is a little too touchy, but that's the way it is. All of us on both sides think the others are blind to the truth, but I know that most of the Muslim editors aren't as angry as that guy. Arrow740 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you list of videos you liked. Have you seen Crash (2004 film)? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sir I do. I watch lots of movies. It tells me that still they USA society have long way to go. I have no idea that why they think it is best society and have freedom of things. --- ALM 09:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw Tom I was back in the mediation because I do not think it is fair thing. We have consensus for many days and they decline to accept it because it was not in their favor. Hence my saying that I will not take part in it is gone, when they are not fair then why should I supposed to be fair? I will write more details on my User page. --- ALM 09:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crash is a good movie you might like, if you have not already seen it. It says a lot about the human condition. It is possible that there are better socities than that in contemporary America. If people learn there is a better place, and if that place has an open immigration policy, we will probably see people moving from America to there, and to there instead of to America. "when they are not fair then why should I supposed to be fair?" - That question has been asked by many people. I think it is something we all have to work out for ourselves. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (as I said above but may be in bad English that) I have seen crash already because I see lot of movies. It is okay movie. I like movies like 12 Angry Men more. Btw I think if someone is good Muslim then he will never be racist towards other Muslims (at least). --- ALM 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign if any of these things applies to your understanding of this issue. Please put you name under all of the options you think would be acceptable. You can sign all or none of these, I'm hoping this will give us a more-fine grained understanding of the issue. [4]

This[5] is basically trolling. Please do not do that. This is not like you. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored and these are the most notable image I know of. Then what is the problem? I wish to agree with the rule of not censored. --- ALM 17:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think you are disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, do it again and I will block you. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I go and change pictures at Lolicon, Bahá'u'lláh and other many articles. My aim is to upheld wikipedia not censored. What is wrong with it? --- ALM 17:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim, when you make such edits it is clear that your goal is not so much to make good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia but moreso to prove a point. Such editing is disruptive. Please be patient and continue in the mediation/consensus process. Thanks. (→Netscott) 18:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALM, if you really want me to believe that you think that is appropriate I will. But it will not be tolerated. I would prefer to believe that you know it is not appropriate, because I think you are a smart person. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will not do it again. But please you and Netscote answer one question. That we do regularly censored wikipedia. There are many many examples like Lolicon, Bahá'u'lláh and even Muhammad cartoon page show the cartoon small (censoring larger possible image). Hence why people here have difficulty accepting it? Why they are telling lie to themselves and other by saying that wikipedia is not censored when it is censored so heavily and so many times.--- ALM 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know anything about those articles, a brief look shows that the subject is pictured in all three. Wikipedia is not censored, but it is also not perfect. It may have failed in not being censored, I don't know. But that does not mean the policy does not exist. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be pretty angry. Do you consider it a sin to look at a painting of Muhammad? Arrow740 17:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it a gross deception to show an unsourced+without Author name picture which is contradictory to the article's text itself and hence misguiding the reader. VirtualEye 06:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there exists a real 'photograph'of Muhammad I will give my life just to see that. ok?

If there exists a fake, 'facts clashing' and un-named painting by a creator who's name is not known, then it has no value according to wikipedia policy or whatever sense. VirtualEye 06:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maome has since been attributed to Al-Biruni, VirtualEye. I don't know his significance in Islamic arts, but it seems as though he is notable in other fields of Islamic studies. --Hojimachong^talk 06:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First the link to Al-Biruni need citation and secondly I do not consider him as Islamic scholar but a scientist. I am a scientist if I make a picture of Jesus then it will be notable.? --- ALM 09:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about getting eyes surgery from a penile sergeon? He will just put testicles in place of your eyes. Hehe. Please Hojimachong, dont give such kind of examples. A scientist is a scientis and has nothing to do with these matters. VirtualEye 16:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear on your confusion over censorship, particularly over what you call censorship at Bahá'u'lláh and Lolicon. If I read the discussions correctly for the former, the issue is still being discussed, just as it is at Muhammad. For latter, refer to WP:PORN. Frotz661 21:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I believe at Bahá'u'lláh they have reached compromise. There is not edit war on it unlike Muhammad. We could have compromise easily in Muhammad too but there are some people who had never edit the article (except putting pictures) and taking part in the discussion. They even not do know basics about Muhammad and Islam. --- ALM 09:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are useful to explain edits, especially if it's unclear why they're being made. For something already extensively discussed, rehashing it isn't necessary or worthwhile. For such a cut and dry issue as my revert, there just isn't anything to add. WilyD 18:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not a democracy - the issue is entirely clear cut. If editors work out a solution that fines, but acting unilaterally against every other editor involved in a dispute to move to a version inconsistant with every relevent policy and guideline is a straight revert. Given the number of times your same edit or it's equivilent had already been revert, I found it unlikely you'd be confused about what happened, or why. I'm sorry if that was the case - it just never entered my mind that it would be. WilyD 18:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the last 26 hours you have removed the picture from the Muhammad article 4 times[6][7][8][9], and been reverted by 4 editors. Stubbornness is not an editing technique. Even though they are not all within 24 hours, WP:3RR states: "Editors may still be blocked even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive."

Stop. If you continue doing this I will give you a 3RR block. That is called edit warring and that is why the article was protected before. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is disputed issue to add or delete picture equally. Hence this should not be disruptive but may be not align to your side. --- ALM 18:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with my side, it has to do with edit warring. If someone else had committed a 3RR violation I would have warned them too, the article is having enough trouble without edit warring. 3RR is not an entitlement to 3 reverts a day, and reverting is not a substitute for discussion. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALM, your cynical and unprincipled behavior - holding my good-faith and factual corrections of the pro-image side and restoral of Aminz's hard work against me - disgusts me. Unless you appear on WP:ANI#3RR right now to formally withdraw your bad-faith report, I will never again waste any of my edits upon helping your cause upon any page in which you are involved.

I have self-reverted to blank Aminz' sourced material and restore what we now know to be false attribution to Al-Biruni according to your report. I trust that you are now satisfied.

Please let me know if there is ever any other falsehood I can restore to or neutrally-presented well-sourcd material I can remove from Wikipedia on your behalf.Proabivouac 13:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think sarcasm is helpful at this point, sarcasm is a form of cynicism I believe. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALM-- until there is a strong consensus to do so, please don't repeatedly remove the image as I see you did recently. It just makes life harder for everyone. You, and possible others, will wind up getting blocked, the page will get locked, and everyone will get hurt feelings along the way, ya know? --Alecmconroy 15:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say that to other who are adding it back. A war is always two sided. --- ALM 15:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 3 people reverted you, none of those people edit warred, because they were not taking the same action over and over. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring picture three times (by same person) within few hours is not edit war? Great highInBC! --- ALM 15:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed you were referring to the edit war you were involved in, as you said "A war is always two sided", in that edit war there were 3 people reverting you. I don't know about the other one you are referring to. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Five reverts in 24 hours and three of them are only putting the picture back (again and again). Exactly same. --- ALM 15:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that report has been exposed to plenty of attention already, that user reverted himself. Looks settled to me. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said "I don't know about the other one you are referring to". I was showing that to you. --- ALM 15:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim, the German Wikipedia could just be more strict about "fair use" images... if that is the case then that would also explain why there's no cartoons on display there. Still it is surprising. (→Netscott) 16:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave a message there at cartoon page. I will be thankful. -- ALM 16:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Karl Meier already answered this question and yes it appears to be due to de.Wiki not using fair use images. (→Netscott) 16:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can prove about few people at least based on their edit pattern and history. However, that will be consider a personal attack. Rest are there to ensure the Muslim do not have censorship on the name of religion. You can say they are there to make WP:POINT. Btw I include Tom and you in second category. If you do not mind (I hope). Otherwise, if someone has studied Islam and know the histroy well then there is no reason not to have pictures. Just like someone has shown to BBC article on Muhammad [35]. --- ALM 17:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this directed at me? Some of the points are hard to figure out. If you're claiming that being out to piss off Muslims is a personal attack, that's wrong (it's an impersonal attack ;)) but not appropriate. But those of us who ar etrying to prevent censorship aren't violating WP:POINT, we're disrupting pointmaking to build an encyclopaedia. That's entirely different. WilyD 18:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we're disrupting pointmaking to build an encyclopaedia Good confession. However, due to obvious reason I disagree. Yes indeed that is why many are here. Neither they have in the past contributed in Muhammad nor they will in future. Neither they ever touch a book to know about him neutrally (other then media). They will make their point and left, wasting all of our past effort and future hopes for improving this article. --- ALM 19:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably not true. A lot of the articles I edit I first came to for purposes along the lines of disrupting pointmaking to build an encyclopaedia. Certainly that's how I've become involved in Black billionaire and Racism by country, of the top of my head. WilyD 19:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is good. Because after you successfully having picture on the top of the article, I will not be editing the article and so are many other Muslims. Hence in that case you contribution will have gold value. Good luck with your future edits. --- ALM 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope your act will improve the article by having one picture and losing people who contribute in it. Good thinking. --- ALM 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALM, this bullying, like so many of your recent actions, is really inappropriate.Proabivouac 03:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALM, you do not have any extra authority over the article, or the mediation because you have edited the article more. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your comments on Talk:Muhammad/Mediation: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.. The relevant edit is [10]. Ttiotsw 06:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ttiotsw's comment that "Muslims hate the Bahais (at least in Iran they do)" is incivil and inappropriate. --Aminz 09:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a diff for where I said that. If I remember correctly you have taken this out of context, it wasn't directed at any editor (thus not a personal attack in particular as this section of talk is titled) but was to further highlight my use of the Bahai as proxy for Islamic hatred towards atheists. I think it is civil, appropriate and is factually correct. Please continue on my own talk page instead of this one. Ttiotsw 09:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Will post on your talk page as well] Here is the diff. [11]. In its context, you've made a general (and incorrect) statement about Muslim attitude towards Bahais. I don't think the Muslim attitude is something of "hate". They reject Bahaism. Some Muslims persecute them. Many just don't care. I am Iranian and I don't "hate" Bahais. In fact I have a good Bahai friend. --Aminz 09:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone gives me that Islamic countries have a problem with nude women anyway (and Gays, Jews, beer, Atheists, wine, Christians, bacon sandwichs, Bahais, seafood, UNHRC...) and that Muslims hate the Bahais (at least in Iran they do) [12]. Then I call him back that he is a Muslim hater. If that is a personal attack then so be it. ALM 11:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I haven't had too much time these days. Even when I am on wikipedia, I'm working on an article. Because of this, I've asked for help from another mediator, but this might take a while, since no one wants this case. · AO ^Talk 19:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assalmualaikum,

I think I may have a solution to the image disoute.

I have put a template here as to how we should resolve the dispute. Please leave a comment regarding this on my talk page. If you like this template please don't put it up yourself. I am looking for some sort of concensus. If you don't like the template please leave a suggestion for improving it.

The solution as you see requires the implementation of core wiki policies.Bless sins 03:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]