User talk:ALM scientist

Muhammad pictures

although you may not be aware that the English Wikipedia project Arbitration Committee decided to decline arbitration on the issue of the proposal to remove or replae that particular image. See [1] under 'Depictions of Muhammad - Declined - 1 June 2007' and [2]RealismIncorporated 08:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You look like a socket-puppet of User:DavidYork71. How can one be so naive to create socket-puppet so many times and make the same kind of mistakes each time. I have not yet file arbitration and I will see there decision when I will file one. --- A. L. M. 08:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:ALM scientist/Muhammad face Pictures

Hey, I voted to keep that... but, it doesn't really serve a purpose (besides a psuedo vote which won't matter) and the page with your reasoning was kept... so, why don't you show some good faith and delete the 'voting' page in a sign of good will since you reasoning page has already been kept. gren グレン 18:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it as you have requested. I hope you will help? --- A. L. M. 08:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of the ten promised paradise

Nice edit:[3] There are many more where that came from, see this list. most created and edited by User:Striver, with Sunni views pitted against Shi'a views according to his original research.Proabivouac 01:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think no article should be created based on just Hadith alone. We should have many secondary sources present in order to start an article and in that article we could use hadith as reference. It is wrong to select few hadith and create article. Hence I wish all of those articles should be deleted. However, it is impossible task now. --- A. L. M. 08:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itaqallah and I chatted about this before, and I think he agrees with us. I'm not sure if it's an impossible task…although these earlier discussions didn't go well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of loving and hating, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Najd. Of course, they're still basically unsourced; seems like Striver can write pretty much anything he wants. I'll run it by a few more people.Proabivouac 20:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although those articles are not very encyclopedia but I do not feel really strong against them. Furthermore, I do not wish a good person like Striver to feel bad towards me. It is his hard work after all. Hence I found myself in a difficult situation. I think I stand on the neutral side with some inclination towards deletion. -:)--- A. L. M. 08:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I hear you saying - and heard you saying in that deletion discussion - is that you totally disagree with these articles, but because Striver is a Muslim, you won't !vote to delete. That's easily seen in all these deletion discussions, such as the recent one for your petition, which was crossposted to WP:ISLAM. No Muslim showed, and I suppose that's as close to a "delete" as I can expect. It's to the point where I'm not recommending deletion of articles I damn well know should be deleted, simply because the creators are generally my friends, while the deletors wouldn't vote to delete a fellow Muslim's page under any circumstances, and would never help me whatever situation I faced, particularly not if a Muslim was on the other side of it. That's really sad. Why does everything around here have to boil down to religious allegiance?Proabivouac 08:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proabivouac just like if I would have been in your place and you have been asking for removing Muhammad pictures then I would have accepted. Because Pictures are not very informative anyway and I would like to make a friend happy. I just wish to respect other people (Muslims or not). I will like to respect your wishes too whenever possible. Having said that, if you nominate some of those articles for deletion then I might vote for delete or neutral. Given that they are not a big harm (on the border line), hence if Striver really wish to keep them then I will act neutral otherwise delete. For me we human (Muslims or non-Muslims) comes first than man made rules. --- A. L. M. 09:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if those articles were real bad then I had no choice but to go for deletion. I hope you could understand my view? -- A. L. M. 09:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well to otherwise would be haram. At least they'll respond to some kafir requests, if not all. Arrow740 09:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow740 you know that I have always treated you with respect and I will always help you whenever I find you right. Remember your first change in wikipedia article Muhammad? --- A. L. M. 09:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walikumsalam

Thanks brother. if you are interested in history, then surely you can help me, if not, then you can help me in correcting spelling mistakes, grammer mistakes and style mistakes, i will be thankful to you. Mohammad Adil 05:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will help as much as I can. Wassalam. --- A. L. M. 07:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article that i am gonna rewrite completely is not of "Umar bin al-khittab" its of "Usman ibn affan". currently work over it is stoped becoz i am confused about how far his empire's frontiers were in west, i have read on one site that its mention in tabari that 1st muslims invasion of spain was done in Usman's time, and muslims captured a part of it, i wil check it my self in tabari(if i get it), any ways some sources says that whole of north africa was included (as a vessel state) from egypt to moroco, some says it was upto tunisia. so i have to confirm it from some books of his biography, if you know about tell me then.
An other article that i am thinking to creat is of islamic empire of the rashidun empire, i.e the empire ruled by rightly guided caliphs though it remained only for 28 years but had much influence on history, after all 7th century muslim swift conquest was undertaken by the caliph of this empire, i need help of some muslims over it to make article look much nice, will you be able to help me ?, i will tell you the main headings of the article, so if u can help then u will tell me under which heading you can contribute, or if you know some one else who can.Allah hafiz Mohammad Adil 19:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for informing, i have reverted and invited that guy for discussion in the forum, when there are already authentic sunni views there on article then it seems no need to edit them with "weak" narrations that seems "funny" ..like mis-interpretation of Khalid order , and soldiers killed Malik etc etc. Mohammad Adil 11:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salam

Prophet Muhammad's article is getting a facelift. After agreeing that no new image be added without discussion, a non-NPOV and non-encyclopedic image by blake was added, seemingly to represent western depictions of Muhammad during the renaissance. Please take a look, thank you. Unflavoured 05:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Blake Image

ALM

I'm aware of the situation - I've already offered a few lukewarm comments. It seems under control for the moment - we'll see how it goes. Anyways, I will point out to your image counting point that the stable version did lose the American Supreme Court carving image that'd been down by depictions because it's copyright was uncertain. So you're not really losing ground there. As for the appropriateness of the image - there are a few reasons I don't like it, but given the context is historic perceptions of Muhammad, the "pro" arguments aren't meritless. If the situation progresses to a full-fledged edit war - actually counting, there were 13 reverts yesterday - which is a bit of a lot. I'll consider the issue, and keep an eye on the page all day. Cheers, WilyD 12:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of tags

Please dont put in tags without creating discussion on the talk page. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution = dying?

What are you doing here? Who told you persecution means dying? I think you're going too far with your edits. Everything will be reverted. Now that you couldnt get your Mohammed images issue going on, you're focusing on other stuff now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to prove them terrorist. Otherwise I will remove each and everyone no proved terrorist. --- A. L. M. 13:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I come to your house and did a suicide attack and killed your sleeping family, is that a terrorist attack or would someone have to certify it by the government to prove its a terrorist attack? Also you didnt read my comment properly. In this case I'm refering to something else. Here's the link --> Click it. You're really funny. Please stop. Focus on something else, that wont get reverted. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is not terrorism. Please check its defination. We need source here a reliable source. It is not you to decide it is terrorism or not. Many people kill many people but it is not considered terrorism. --- A. L. M. 14:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this section, I am refering to your edit here <--- . Who told you persecution meant dying? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who is accused in a court of law, is persecuted by you. Who told you that? --- A. L. M. 14:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking a simple question: Does persecution mean dying or not? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, it includes other things. But look at my edit that what I have deleted. It was not persecution, a case is filed and he is called not guilty. Why he is persecuted? --- A. L. M. 14:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<r> I'm talking about your EDIT SUMMARY here. You said "No persecution here. No one died". That means you implied that persecution only means an act of dying. Is that correct? By your edit summary, you implied that persecution only means dying. Now you're saying it includes other things. Why did you give the false edit summary then? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The person whose data I have removed has found not guilty. Hence not dead. Right? If he is feaky dead then he is persecuted. Otherwise filing case against him is NOT persecuted. --- A. L. M. 14:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]