VirtualEye (talk | contribs) |
ALM scientist (talk | contribs) removed |
||
Line 475: | Line 475: | ||
::Thanks, I appreciate it. —[[User:Bbatsell|<b><font color="#555">bbatsell</font></b>]] [[User_talk:Bbatsell|<font color="#C46100" size="1">¿?</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Bbatsell|<font color="#2C9191" size="3">✍</font>]] 22:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC) |
::Thanks, I appreciate it. —[[User:Bbatsell|<b><font color="#555">bbatsell</font></b>]] [[User_talk:Bbatsell|<font color="#C46100" size="1">¿?</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Bbatsell|<font color="#2C9191" size="3">✍</font>]] 22:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Final Warning == |
|||
ALM-- |
|||
Okay, content discussions between you and I are over, I'm officially considering you a behavior issue from here on out. By my count, you have edit warred on the page, against policy, quite a bit. 71 times in fact: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad/images&diff=prev&oldid=113132856] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad/images&diff=prev&oldid=112829035] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad/images&diff=prev&oldid=112825454] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad/images&diff=prev&oldid=112821545] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad/images&diff=prev&oldid=111641021] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad/images&diff=prev&oldid=111574659] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad/images&diff=prev&oldid=111568428] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=111063254] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=111063158] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=111063158] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad/images&diff=prev&oldid=111062035] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad/images&diff=prev&oldid=111061293] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=110297878] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=110297100] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=110297018] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=110296961] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=110112105] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=109850373] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=109842283] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaaba&diff=prev&oldid=102005578] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=98965203] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=98680190] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=97954399] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaaba&diff=prev&oldid=97769381] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=97542669] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=93788255] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=93785895] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=92179980] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=92028152] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=92026793] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=84625983] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=84596624] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=84583512] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=84216716] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=84080770] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=84077498] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=83617112] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=83594802] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=83463608] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=81445779] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=81445553] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=80983139] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=79740508] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=79500001] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=79495844] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=78357227] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=78300690] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=78300612] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=78200067] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=78199945] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=77720783] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=77409054] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=77408808] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=77256875] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=77074675] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=76971593] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=76971516] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=76882079] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=76658894] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=76655926] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=76638799] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=76303902] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=76193841] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=76035647] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=76031305] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=73706615] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=73662542] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=72433637] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=72285766] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=72272379] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=57936398] |
|||
That's enough for any one editor, I dare say, so, you should officially retire yourself from edit warring on this any futher. By all means, feel free to discuss, argue, vote-- but don't remove images again. 3 reverts can be a block under the right circumstances. 5 reverts could be a bit excessive, though perhaps justifiable. 10 deletions of well-sourced material is probably a POV campaign. '''Seventy-one''' is inexcusable-- just plain inexcusable. |
|||
So, it's time for you to stop this campaign. If you do it again, I will report you to the admins, and you will wind up blocked-- count on it. So, this is a promise: hopefully you can restrain yourself and let the many people who agree with you handle this situation for you. If you cannot learn to control yourself, then Wikipedia cannot afford you to keep you on as editor. So, consider this a promise: Do it again, and I'll do anything I can to make you stop. I'm very sorry it's come to this, but looking over your edit history, it's pretty clear that you have a behavior problem that needs to stop. --[[User:Alecmconroy|Alecmconroy]] 00:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:59, 7 March 2007
![]() |
1, 2 |
RFC on KazakhPol
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)
- 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)
Thanks
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)
- ha ha. I liked Qalenderanna thinking to myself. --- ALM 12:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Regarding 88.106.72.34
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. --Hojimachongtalkcon 20:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Understanding Submission
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)
Grammar
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)
Comments in mediation
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)
- I have signed here in front of my comments. Hence STOP removing them. --- ALM 10:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
Your user page
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
-:) 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)
- 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)
- okay. -- ALM 19:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
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)
Movies
I saw you list of videos you liked. Have you seen Crash (2004 film)? Tom Harrison Talk 21:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Poll on every little issue
Please sign if any of these things applies to your understanding of this issue. Please put you name under all of the options you think would be acceptable. You can sign all or none of these, I'm hoping this will give us a more-fine grained understanding of the issue.
This is not cool
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
Question from Arrow740
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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. --Hojimachongtalk 06:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- How about getting eyes surgery from a heart sergeon? He will just put something else in place of your eyes. 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)
censorship
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)
- 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)
Edit summaries
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)
- 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)
3RR
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
Don't edit-war
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)
- Say that to other who are adding it back. A war is always two sided. --- ALM 15:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Restoring picture three times (by same person) within few hours is not edit war? Great highInBC! --- ALM 15:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
German Wikipedia
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)
- Please leave a message there at cartoon page. I will be thankful. -- ALM 16:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
Who's this for?
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Bullying
ALM, this bullying, like so many of your recent actions, is really inappropriate.Proabivouac 03:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
NPA2 in Talk:Muhammad/Mediation
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- [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)
- 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)
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)
Mediation
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)
A dispute over our beloved Prophet
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)
Hi ALM; I thought you said you would not remove the picture if I found pictures of Muhammad in mainstream biographies - Remember, I went the library and got those books, which I listed for you somewhere. Tom Harrison Talk 13:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- But remember I said above (when we are talking about Crash(2004)) that I think they are not fair and why I should be fair then? We had a compromise and a consensus reached but they decline to accept it when only 2 votes were against it. That consensus was on mediation page for many days. Hence if someone else cannot keep it side of fairness then I also cannot be fair myself. I quote my last statement here from above "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)" I also change my user page to explain it but now it changed back again. --- ALM 14:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, if you think breaking your word was justified by other people's behavior, I'll say no more about it. Tom Harrison Talk 14:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Congratulations to you and to the others on the Muhammad mediation page for talking as calmly as you are. By the way, there is a black-and-white calligraphy on the Dutch Muhammad page, in case you didn't know about it. I can't seem to find how they display it, though. --Coppertwig 02:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Kindly request
Ibrahim, could you avoid using bolface so much? It is a bit disquieting to read text like that particulary so frequently. Thanks. (→Netscott) 00:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
sure. noted. --- ALM 00:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Antisemitism
Hi ALM,
Please watch this article. A new series of censorship has started. --Aminz 11:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Question
ALM, you say you are a scientist; I would be interested in knowing what kind of scientific work you do. I would appreciate it if you responded on my talk page. --Hojimachongtalk 15:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Ibrahim, I would sooner suggest that rather than using contemporary examples of calligraphy we use older examples. Wouldn't it establish the tradition of representational imagery of Muhammad to use something like the calligraphy found in Hagia Sofphia or centuries old examples? (→Netscott) 12:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- According to US law taking a photograph that primarily consists of another's work does not convey the rights of the original image to the photographer. That image would thereby qualify for tagging as {{PD-old}} so long as the calligraphy is as you say centuries old. The photographer wil have no rights to that image no matter what. (→Netscott) 12:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- You will know that you have consensus on your side when other editors agree with the points you make. Please do not remove depictions against the consensus at the mediation. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- You have removed a calligraphy picture then it me who is removing and NOT YOU??? Do not remove them to tell lie about reality. Do not censor reality on the name of censorship. I have given you three references they are saying what you wish to have. I will find more references too but looks you will never change your views. Which is very unfortunate. --- ALM 14:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I undid your replacement of a valid image. You are welcome to place your calligraphy, but not at the expense of valid information. You know my intention is not to suppress calligraphy. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
ASA. Desperate help needed on islamophobic article Ramadan riots which is actually the same thing as French riots. Claims that the french unrest in the ghetoes was motivated by hatred of jews and christians as allegedly commanded by the quran. Support speedy deletion. Aaliyah Stevens 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
You need to stop this
ALM-- it's clear that you have a bit of a religious campaign going here to try to remove depictions of Muhammad from the article. You have repeatedly try to remove or bury images of this sort in the article, and you've been the major force behind the edit-warring-against-consensus that has led the article to be locked for extended periods of time.
Now, you've been given a lot of warning to stop this behavior, and I think the time where we just look the other way and let you to disrupt the encyclopedia is starting to draw to a close. I'm not going to debate the merits of the images debate with you here, for the time being, simply accept that you have made your case for the removal of images, and it has been repeatedly rejected by the community. The time for you to just deleting them yourself has come to an end. Here are the circumstances under which it would be okay to delete images: 1. When a strong consensus has developed that they should be removed. 2. When an Arbcom Case tells you it's okay to remove them. 3. When the Board tells you it's okay to remove them. That's it.
You have not met those conditions. The surveys and discussions clearly show that there is no consensus for your changes (not even a majority). If you want to get the images removed, you need to either wait until people are convinced, file an arbcom case, or write an email to the people who run the Wikipedia servers. You may not keep removing the images yourself'. That is a behavior that will ultimately result your being blocked for disrupting the encyclopedia. --Alecmconroy 14:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- i disagree completely. the previous consensus was a lead without a depiction, or any other image. a disruptive editor resolved to unilaterally revert war extensively to include a depiction in the lead. the article was protected on his version, and the protect lasted for quite a while. when the article was unprotected and the image removed, a few editors defended its place there, though it remained heavily disputed. that's not called consensus, and there has been no consensus since the pre-edit warring version. ITAQALLAH 15:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- There is a clear consensus in the mediation in the form of constant challenges to the validity of your various reasonings to remove the depiction. We have challenged the arguments, and they do not hold, they do not have community consensus. The position that the image should be removed has been discussed and discussed, but the community has not been swayed. I would take this warning to heart, Alecmconroy has explained it very well. Ignoring this consensus is not how to edit Wikipedia. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- i am sorry HighinBC, but there is no basis on which to proclaim consensus, as i have explained here. unless you can point me to the discussion demonstrating the conclusion of the mediation (aka consensus), please can we not misrepresent the state of the discussion. ITAQALLAH 15:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Why there are new picture in the article of Muhammad and now the dispute extend to FOUR potraits. Do you think it is okay? --- ALM 19:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- You must be seeing an old version. For a minute there was a fourth image but I removed it and so far it has not been added back. I wanted to thank you for reverting my user page as well. (→Netscott) 19:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- You are welcome netscott. --- ALM 19:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
ASA. Desperate help needed on islamophobic article Ramadan riots which is actually the same thing as French riots. Claims that the french unrest in the ghetoes was motivated by hatred of jews and christians as allegedly commanded by the quran. Support speedy deletion. Aaliyah Stevens 00:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm burnt out
ALM, I've been away from WP for a few days, taking a break, and I am probably going to take a much longer one. I'm getting angry and bitter at the stupidity and hatred on display here, and I don't like feeling this way. Unless something changes in the way WP is run, it's going to be destroyed by people with narrow agendas, who have no real concern with creating a useful encyclopedia, but just want to seize articles as pulpits for their views. Not only that, they're NOT NICE.
At least the people at Distributed Proofreaders are kind and sensible. Zora 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Shahada
Thank you for replacing the Saudi Flag image. This one is much better. I am not clear that it belongs in this section - its point is that Muslims see Muhammad as God's prophet, which is mentioned pretty early on, while this section already has the completely topical Wazir Khan image - perhaps we can move it further up the article?Proabivouac 11:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I do not care about this issue. Do whatever you like. I care about not having un-veiled or even veiled picture of my beloved prophet on the top of the article. Hence if you could help in that then I will be very happy and thankful. --- ALM 11:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Image placement
- ALM
I'm not at all attached to the image being above the navigational bars. But that's not an endorsement of "burying" such images at the very bottom of the page. Anything up to and including Life based on Islamic traditions I definitely wouldn't raise a fuss to, and I'm not entirely sure when I'd get cranky.
FWIW, I actually don't like two leadinging images like the situation now on an aesthetic level. I just think it looks ugly. What I'd called ideal is probably something like this image on the left side of Overview, which I actually think looks much nicer than the Maome image - your milage may vary. WilyD 14:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Images
Here are some image copyright problems:
- Image:Wazir-mosque-ALLAH-Muhammad.jpg, Flickr doesn't have an option for showing that an author revokes all rights. You need to explain why you have put that copyright tag.
- Image:Wazir Khan Mosque Hadith.jpg same as above.
- Image:No-shoes-in-mosques-turkey.jpg same as above.
- Image:ALI-Calligraphy.jpg same as above.
- You have a bunch more with this problem that you can find from this list. If you can show / prove that the author has released all rights (e-mail or something else) then that's fine... you just need to mention it on the image pages. Otherwise it looks like you took a copyrighted image from Flickr and just said it was free.
- Image:Sahadah-Topkapi-Palace.JPG, your copyright tag is not proper because that only applies to two dimensional images. Even though the subject is relatively two dimensional... that picture is not just a replica of the ornament... it's taken from a distance which gives it an angle and therefore could imply artistic value and is thus not in the public domain just because the ornament is over 100 years old. Image:Fig40 c lg.jpg is similar but I think that is okay because it is only representing the object directly and doesn't have room to claim artistic impression.
I hope they are free... but, you need to show it... Thanks. gren グレン 05:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- All of those rights are recieved by emails. Should I copy and past the emails there? Secondly, only for Image:Sahadah-Topkapi-Palace.JPG and Image:Fig40 c lg.jpg I have not email anyone. Do you think I should nominate speedy deletion for the Image:Sahadah-Topkapi-Palace.JPG or alter it for making acceptable for wikipedia? regards. --- ALM 12:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- What you think about [These old coins]. Some had Muhammad on them as far as I can read. But they are not from WP:RS but really old. --- ALM 12:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- A very specific type of permission is needed to be sent to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org, see information here: Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- No time to read it now but will read it later. thanks --- ALM 15:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration about Muhammad pictures
I can try if you explain more what you want. I don't particularly care to be a big part of an arbitration. As it is on the mediation I didn't even sign on as a member. To me Wikipedia is a great source of information and a rather poor source of contextualization for it. As long as Wikipedia is structured the way it is I am not going to take too much effort to argue for something. So, if you want my opinion on something feel free to ask... if you want me to be a big part of an arbitration then... I'd rather not. gren グレン 18:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- ALM, I'm pretty sure ArbCom is not going to take this case if it's presented, it's 90% a content dispute. At most they will just impose some kind of probation on everyone, which I don't think anyone wants. (And even that is doubtful since the edit-warring seems to have died down). For the moment I think we should continue to try to resolve this another way. - Merzbow 19:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps if it was worded as a neutral request to interpret policy instead of stating a content dispute it will do better. HowIBecameCivil 19:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Lead image of Muhammad
Ibrahim, I'm sorry but I believe at this point the best solution to lead images of Muhammad will be in accord with User:Merzbow's suggestion of a veiled image. Unless more editors with your point of view come to bear upon this question it appears that a lead image of him will remain for now. (→Netscott) 15:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- At this point I'm not going to be editing in terms of changing or removing, etc. images from Muhammad/images. I think User:Merzbow's suggestion is generally fair considering that there already was a veiled image of Muhammad on the article for so long. (→Netscott) 15:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I'm not planning on editing in that regard any further. I've implemented a change that struck me as sensible. To be perfectly honest with you I'm nearly 100% sure that my change will be reverted in short order (you may even do so yourself). I will read through your arbitration proposal and see how I can be of assistance. (→Netscott) 16:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I concur. I think this is the best we're going to get ALM. - Merzbow 21:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I'm not planning on editing in that regard any further. I've implemented a change that struck me as sensible. To be perfectly honest with you I'm nearly 100% sure that my change will be reverted in short order (you may even do so yourself). I will read through your arbitration proposal and see how I can be of assistance. (→Netscott) 16:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration and content disputes
The Arbitration Committee specifically tries to avoid dealing with content issues, dealing instead only with behavioral issues. I hope that is helpful. Jayjg (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It was clear that mediation could never succeed, since Muslim editors would inevitably refuse to accept any solution that involved including an image of Muhammad on the page. However, current interpretations of Islamic law and Wikipedia policy are at odds here, so the on-going conflict is intractable. I don't see any solution. Sorry. Jayjg (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thank you
could you check if my photo becomes confidential —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eyas Hajeh (talk • contribs) 23:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
Check out the BBC survey I added to these articles. --Aminz 09:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"Undue weight"
ALM, your appeals to policy may be aptly characterized as a cynical lie.Proabivouac 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- is that how you would characterise the arguments of others who have maintained this stance? ITAQALLAH 17:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Women Slave and Sex
Are you saying that it is forbidden in Islam for the owner of a woman slave to have sex with her? I thought that sex was fornication if it were not with a wife or a woman "who your right hand possesses" (slave). Is sex with a woman slave fornication? Regards, NN 12:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- According to Sunni Islam it is forbidden for sure. I think few Shia scholars says it is allowed which is a minority. However, you need reference to support your claim otherwise I will revert it. --- ALM 12:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Translations of Sura 33:50 by Yusufali, Pickthal, and Shakir all say it is "lawful" to have sex with those "your right hands possess". For example see [13]. As you would like to be true to your religion I will give you the opportunity to restore my edit rather than restoring it myself. NN 12:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Let me see some Tafsir before I change it back. We cannot decide only on the base of meanings because it will be an original research. Right? --- ALM 12:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong. It does not need a Tafsir to establish a fact on Wiki. The sources being cited are reputable. You can contest either of two facts. 1) Are women captives those "that your right hands possess" 2) Is sex lawful with those "that your right hand possess". Which one of these facts are you contesting? I understand that from your religious viewpoint you need a Tasfir to accept an interpretation, however that standard does not apply to Wiki. NN 12:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- The same standards apply to wiki too. We cannot use primary sources without explaination from secondary sources. We call it here WP:OR. Please read WP:OR#Primary_and_secondary_sources. --- ALM 12:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am neither Yusufali, nor Pickthal, or even Shakir. So citing them does not violate WP:OR. Also they are secondary sources even though you may regard only Tasfirs to be secondary sources. They fit the description "Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce." NN 12:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ask anyone around Quran and its translation is consider as primary source. Even people who write critisum against Islam do not use Quran directly as source. It is against WP:OR#Primary_and_secondary_sources. --- ALM 12:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- So you would be okay with text like "In the Quran it says that it is lawful to have sex with those "that your right hand possess"? NN 12:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please we cannot say so. We are not Alims to write about Quran in this way. We can say that "A secondary source abc says that in quran...". Find secondary sources that fullfil WP:RS critaria. --- ALM 12:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am trying to understand your position. The concept of Alims is not necessary for Wiki. If I were to write in the article "The Quran according to translations by Yusufali, Pickthal, and Shakir says that it is lawful to have sex with those that your right hand possess", tell me exactly what Wiki policy I would have violated? NN 13:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please we cannot say so. We are not Alims to write about Quran in this way. We can say that "A secondary source abc says that in quran...". Find secondary sources that fullfil WP:RS critaria. --- ALM 12:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- So you would be okay with text like "In the Quran it says that it is lawful to have sex with those "that your right hand possess"? NN 12:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ask anyone around Quran and its translation is consider as primary source. Even people who write critisum against Islam do not use Quran directly as source. It is against WP:OR#Primary_and_secondary_sources. --- ALM 12:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am neither Yusufali, nor Pickthal, or even Shakir. So citing them does not violate WP:OR. Also they are secondary sources even though you may regard only Tasfirs to be secondary sources. They fit the description "Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce." NN 12:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- The same standards apply to wiki too. We cannot use primary sources without explaination from secondary sources. We call it here WP:OR. Please read WP:OR#Primary_and_secondary_sources. --- ALM 12:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong. It does not need a Tafsir to establish a fact on Wiki. The sources being cited are reputable. You can contest either of two facts. 1) Are women captives those "that your right hands possess" 2) Is sex lawful with those "that your right hand possess". Which one of these facts are you contesting? I understand that from your religious viewpoint you need a Tasfir to accept an interpretation, however that standard does not apply to Wiki. NN 12:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Let me see some Tafsir before I change it back. We cannot decide only on the base of meanings because it will be an original research. Right? --- ALM 12:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Translations of Sura 33:50 by Yusufali, Pickthal, and Shakir all say it is "lawful" to have sex with those "your right hands possess". For example see [13]. As you would like to be true to your religion I will give you the opportunity to restore my edit rather than restoring it myself. NN 12:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:OR#Primary_and_secondary_sources --- ALM 13:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, I would not have violated either of those. This is similar to, say, quoting from a book by Mark Twain. You cannot say that I cannot do that on the basis of WP:OR#Primary_and_secondary_sources. On Wiki the Quran does not get any more consideration than a book by Mark Twain. NN 13:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Quran, Bible are real primary sources. You cannot elaborate them without using secondary source. Having said that I really have to study and cannot continue this discussion for now. May be later... sorry. bye. --- ALM 13:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the Quran and Bible are primary sources just like a book by Twain. And they can be used. Read the policy. It says "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." Text like "The translations of the Quran by Yusufali, Pickthal, and Shakir says that it is lawful to have sex with those that your right hand possess" IS is a descriptive claim. Hence it will be added. NN 13:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Quran, Bible are real primary sources. You cannot elaborate them without using secondary source. Having said that I really have to study and cannot continue this discussion for now. May be later... sorry. bye. --- ALM 13:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Mediation
I have changed the status of the case to closed. I'll leave a message on the Mediation page. · AO Talk 12:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I see you're already discussing RfC. I'll check back later to see how you're going when I'm not so busy. · AO Talk 12:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Muhammad Arbitration
You type very long and it is difficult to read such a long views. Please be short. :) --- ALM 12:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hehehe. Granted. Brevity isn't my strong point, although I make up for it by posting infrequently I suppose. Anyway, the short answer is: you don't need any a vote of any kind to ask ArbCom to look things over, you can just file it by following by going to WP:RFAr. I'm pretty sure they won't take the case, but I don't see any harm in your asking.
- If/when that doesn't work, the way to force the issue to be decided is to go the "legislative" route rather than the "judicial" route. Going to Wikipedia:How to create policy and them writing up a page called something like Wikipedia:Depictions of Muhammad or something. You're at a disadvantage here, because while there's lots of policies that say you can be blocked for repeatedly deleting things from articles, there isn't anything in policy that says it's wrong to include images of Muhammad. Until there's some justification, in Wikipedia policy, for the idea that we should avoid images of Muhammad, it'll never be solved. (of course, I don't think Wikipedia will adopt such a policy, but you never know)
- For what it's worth, ALM, I am sorry. I know you're just trying to do what you believe God wants you to do, and if our positions were reversed and I believed everything you believe, I hope I'd have the courage of my convictions to doing what you are. Do understand that even though having a Muhammad image in the lead is definitely going to be in interpreted as an insult to Islam, that's not why we want it there, ya know. People are just trying to be consistent, but nobody's trying to go out of their way to upset Muslim readers.
- And look-- it seems like I wasn't very brief again either. hehe. I gotta cure myself of that. --Alecmconroy
- I have no idea that how to tell other people that I am not censoring because of my religion. If that would have been true then I will not like to accept any picture at all in the article. Hence if there is a point where wikipedia rules and Islamic rule collide then I follow wikipedia rules it is because this is not an ideal/Islamic place and I understand it. Having said that it is against WP:NPOV#Undue_weight to have those picture on prominent places given that they represent a minority tradition. WP:NPOV#Undue_weight says Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. I am preparing an arbitration case see User:ALM_scientist/arbitration_Muhammad and will provide all the references. Please tell me what I supposed to do to tell that I am not censoring because of my religion only? --- ALM 13:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know that there's anything you can do about that, unfortunately. I mean, I certainly can believe people would want the images removed/bury out of a general concern about being offensive to the Muslim world-- even if they themselves didn't subscribe to the rule against depictions. However, I can't seriously believe argument that this has nothing to do with the Islamic rule, but is just a normal case of concern about "undue weight"-- I don't think anyone can really believe that. Paintings were always scare in antiquity, but nobody's complained about the "undue weight" of including images of any other historical figures-- asking people to believe it's just a coincidence that this "undue weight" argument has come up precisely on the page where people would have religious motivations to find any excuse they could to delete the images-- it just a little more than we're capable of.
- If I were you, I'd just argue upfront that we should give consideration to the possibility of offending our Muslim readers. "Undue weight" is easy to disprove-- I just have to look at all the articles on historical figures and see "nope-- this is how much weight we always give to images in cases like this". On there hand, the concerns about giving offense have to pull at the heartstrings of anyone with empathy. In all the discussion, futurebird was by far the one who gave me the most doubts about including images, because she openly said "Maybe we should _try_ not to offend" and made me look inside and image what it must feel like to come to Wikipedia and feel like the authors didn't care about you or your feelings at all. I still felt the principle was important, but she made me spend a good day soul-searching-- if Arbcom takes the case, be sure to ask her to repeat her comments, as I think think anyone on deciding the issue should definitely hear what she has to say before they make up their minds. --Alecmconroy 13:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I cannot read your above message because it is so long. I have to drink something to have courage to read above. I will try to read it after few hours. --- ALM 13:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I never said that it has nothing to do with religion because otherwise I will say who cares to spend so much time on one picture. But When my religion and wikipeida rules come in clash then I have to sacarify my religion. Because I have to follow the rule of this place and it is not Islamic. That is why I have no objection in having that picture near bottom even though it is against my religion. However, undue weight apply hear very well because in case of Jesus, pictures are very common and in case of Muhammad, tradition of drawing NOT pictures are common (in Muslims as well as in non-Muslim). Giving picture on the top tell end users that it is common to have Muhammad pictures (which is wrong for encyclopedia). However, people here are not even willing to hear my argument and they cannot think anything other than my religion affilations. They stereotype me and it is pity.. --- ALM 14:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you're just worried that people won't know Islamic cultures don't like images of Muhammad, then you don't have to worry. Trust me-- everybody knows. I know the west can be pretty clueless about other cultures in general, but we all know that much. And we mention it multiple times in the article, just in case. --Alecmconroy 14:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- You say: "If we include images, readers will think it is okay to have depictions in Islamic cultures. It will 'misrepesent' them". I'm saying: you don't have to worry about that. Our readers already know depictions of Muhammad are forbidden in Islamic countries. Plus, we tell them that in the article. So don't worry-- nobody will be misled. --Alecmconroy 14:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. My son is now 1.5 year old. He and his generation will be surfing web in next two, three years. I am not sure that each ones parent will tell them that wikipedia has wrong information about tradition. I think it is better idea to represent the tradition they way it is. Hence satisfy WP:NPOV#Undue_weight properly by change it position to non-prominent, changing its caption and as well as writing in the article. Here it is for your reading (which is btw a policy): An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.. WHY CANNOT WE APPLY IT PLEASE... --- ALM 14:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- That argument works both way. I could argue that if we don't include images in the lead, children might think it is against western tradition have images of Muhammad. :) We could debate forever on what subtle misunderstandings someone could conceivably get. This is why we have the whole "Depictions of Muhammad" section, to explicitly mention that depictions are usually forbiddden. --Alecmconroy 14:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Well even non-Muslim do not depict him usually. We have to find reference but we know it using a survey. We have shown that from an amazon.com (a Western website) search 5/49 time he was depicted on book covers. These book are the very first 49 books appear in that search (result without any censorship). That is obviously unlike Jesus and other personalities where majority of books will have there picture (we can do a similar survey). Agreed? Once again I will search for reference too. Hence not having picture on the top even is align with western tradition about Muhammad. --- ALM 14:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Even if it werent' original research, I wouldn't even know where to start in trying to make a decision based on that. 5/49? Is that a lot? How many of the first 49 books on amazon would we expect something to have before we were allowed to use images of it in our articles? 6/49? 7/49? 13.2/49? --Alecmconroy 14:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Survey give these results
- Potrait of Muhammad: 5
- Calligrpahy of Muhammad, Sahadat, BismillAllah: 17
- Mosques or old city of Mecca etc : 9
- Text or Muslims or some design etc: 18
We can have them in right proportion. That is what WP:NPOV#Undue_weight says to have things in right proportion (should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject). That is if we have calligraphy and potrait ratio should be 17/5 etc. However, I agree that we need to find a reference because it is just survey. In that I know you will also help me? Right? --- ALM 14:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that may be the silliest single proposal I've ever heard-- a very creative attempt to justify having fewer depictions though, I must give you. Thank goodness that isn't actually Wikipedia policy-- if we decided what images to use in Wikipedia by making it reflect exactly the proportion of images on the internet, there's probably be nothing on Wikipedia but pornography. LOL. --Alecmconroy 15:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Undue Weight
ALM, hhaving considered it, something doesn't sit totally right with me in your undue weight argument, and I think I've nailed it down:
- Outside of Islam, Muhammad is still one of the most important figures in western history. Strictly as the founder of an empire of such importance, and someone who did it uniquely (rather than something that really could have been done by anyone), that empire served as the centre of knowledge gathering/storing/developing in the west for quite a while - it's probably the single most important such source for 700-1500, and contains the seeds necessary for the renaissence, et cetera.
- Because of this, quite apart from his importance to Islam, he's an important historical figure. He's a guy we all agree to be a real guy. If there was a Judeo-Christ-Islamic prohibition on depicting the Archangel Michael who is generically believed to not be a real guy by non-Judeo-Christ-Islamics this kind of undue weight argument would carry more weight. But generically as a important historical figure we include images of the guy or gal, even when there's good reason to believe they're unreliable, when there isn't much of a history of portrayal, whatever. Cleopatra, King Arthur, [{Plutarch]] are all really the imagination and guesswork of some verifiable source.
- Anyways, your milage may vary. But expect this kind of objection. WilyD 14:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Well even non-Muslim do not depict him usually. We have to find reference but we know it using a survey. We have shown that from an amazon.com (a Western website) search 5/49 time he was depicted on book covers. These book are the very first 49 books appear in the search. That is obviously unlike Jesus and other personalities where majority of books will have there picture (we can do a similar survey). Agreed? Once again I will search for reference too. --- ALM 14:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree with this. In a modern context a book might not picture him on it's cover for various reasons, including marketability and avoiding harrassment, historically there are noteworthy instances (such as the American Capital Building or such?) I'm also not sure quantity of depictions is a useful metric. There are almost certainly far more images of Jesus than of Pythagoras but I don't see that it implies one page should have more images than the other (generally, I think you probably want a constant image/text ratio for aethetics). Anyways, you (and many others) often seem to convey an attitude that his importance in Islam means Islamic tradition should dominate the article, which is likely to put people off, and certainly his importance outside of Islam is extremely great as well. Dunno, just some thoughts. WilyD 17:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
I mean how can i convert my picture to be seen only on my page peace upon you
those strawpolls
In your own interest, I'd strongly recommend you revert yourself on that splitting of the strawpoll in two. You have no chance getting a consensus on your second, and you very much risk torpedoing the success of the first. You are running the risk of losing all with this move. Nobody has as yet expressed a desire to do what you fear they would do, so why don't you just trust people's good sense - and their tiredness! - they won't start edit-warring over those details tomorrow. Either you agree to the first proposal now, or we'll never have one. Seriously, dude, you're endangering it all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I for one will not fight against moving those images around, and I really can't see what difference it makes. Let's not charge the positioning of with overly much symbolic significance. If you must fight to keep them in the bottom half, you must know that you'll be alone, and more likely than not instead of winning you will lose everything. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Assalamu alaykum
Can't possibly keep track of everywhere I should be, but I do feel you and I are on the same page on key issues. Please let me know of discussions you think we should be taking part in together. JAK for all the good work you're doing here. BYT 19:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Waaliakum-Assalam, JAK for your support BYT. I will keep your posted. regards. --- ALM 19:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Policy
Here's the thing-- without a consensus, you can't remove the veiled image from the lead. Clearly, there is no consensus to do that. You should now file an arbcom request or propose a new policy that forbids us from using images that may be religiously offensive. It is clear to me now that your views are not compatable with WP:NPOV and Wikipedia is not censored, so until those policies have been changed or reinterpreted by Arbcom, we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this-- just file an arbcom case or propose the changes in policy you want and be done with it. --Alecmconroy 20:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is no consensus to keep it there too. Hence I will remove it from the there. Your views are not compatable with WP:NPOV according to my understanding. Wikipedia is not censored here does not apply. --- ALM 20:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- The image has been there for quite some time, and you'll have to establish a consensus to make any such controversial change. Another issue is that policy, including "Wikipedia is not censored", also apply to the Muhammad article. I have no idea what makes you thinks otherwise. -- Karl Meier 20:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia is not censored here does not apply."
- Per Karl Meier, it certainly does. I suggest you try to amend it accordingly. If you succeed in doing so, then you'll be free to censor the article however you like.Proabivouac 22:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Really quick picky request
Hey ALM, can I make a slightly dickish request? Making lots of slight edits in a row on a page like AN/I can be kind of annoying because a) the text is continually changing and b) it leads to edit conflicts. Could I ask that maybe you hit "Show preview" and re-read to make sure you've pretty much got the text you want to go down instead of making lots of smaller, minor edits after the fact? Thanks a bunch, and I'm sorry if this comes across as rude or uncivil or anything like that; it's not my intention. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay! Sorry :) I will take care of it in the future. --- ALM 21:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)