User talk:Grenavitar/Archive 4

グレン >?:""

Template:BioCOTWvoter--Falphin 4 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)

Image

Ooops, I did that by mistake --Hottentot

Jonadabs

Hi, you voted for keep on that VfD and I was just questioning why. I agree that it seemed notable but there were no sources and upon an online search I found nothing and the original author of the page continuously added links that did not even contain the word Jonadabs as sources. I would ask that you abstain (I'm sorry if this is presumptuous) if you don't know sources and are just voting because the concept seems notable. I agreed and that's why I did nothing since my first edits but this article needs sources. Can you comment back? Thanks. gren 05:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I feel that this is a somewhat important religion (it got 652 hits on a google test), and unless you can prove to me that it should be deleted, I personally feel it should be kept, as it would be important for someone researching the topic (it's the top result on google, too). I can understand your position, and as someone who is unfamiliar with the Jonadabs themselves, I feel more must be written to convince me otherwise. It probably will not take too much work to sway me, but I think this should be kept, unless there's a pretty good reason. I'm going to change my vote to a week keep and state my reasons. Sorry if I was unclear, my sekurity 05:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's understandable. The user who created the article slightly irked me first by citing the sources as "The Bible" and "reasoning" or something like that. When I asked for referenced I got the sites now listed the first one mentions "Jonadabs" twice:

The other sheep – called Jonadabs, are the great multitude who associate with the anointed, rendering them aid and if faithful they will live through Armageddon which is very near.

For 1900 years now the Royal family of 144,000 is now about completed.The Jonadabs are those who are in sympathy with Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Wise Servant Class.

That was the only one that seemed to mention the word... This all seems very tenuous to me and those are not sources that signify a significant movement (and my tolerance for insignificance is rather great) nor does it signify there being any available facts on "Jonadabs" as a movement, rather than just a one word concept. as the books on google print seem to show. gren 05:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, tough descisions.... you did well in getting my vote. for that, I am now changing it (to a weak delete, but still a delete). Congratulations, and thanks for worrying about what I think :) -my sekurity 05:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jonadabs

Gren, I believe it's for real. See: [1] or [2]. However, the article is written so strangely that I myself can't figure out whether it's written by an actual Jehovah's Witness, or whether it's some kind of subtle parody. It should be kept, but radically changed. Which I can't do, because I have to go to my zendo tomorrow morning, and then migrate my computer to a new case. Zora 06:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't started the computer migration. Myself, I think that the best way to handle it would be to merge the Jonadab and Jehovah's Witness article, and then have an entry for Jonadab that simply redirects to JW. I don't want to hang on to the article just because I wrote it and frankly, it seems like a very minor point. However, someone who ran into the term Jonadab would not know to look under JW, so the redirect, or the "See", would be useful. Zora 00:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't answer earlier, my Talk: page is very active and I missed your comment. It looks somewhat real to me, but very few Google links (relatively speaking). I suspect the article should be a redirect to Jehova's Witnesses, with a subsection there. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslims

I was wondering if you could come up with a way for adding a section on the List of Muslims for founders of organizations and movements. Some of the people who would fit into this category wouldn't necessarily be theologians. Also, feel free to send me an e-mail at my talk page. --JuanMuslim 04:43, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

EU Commission Presidents

Your proposal for deleting the template is perfectly fine, and is acceptable to me. -- Emsworth 12:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That VFD

You are likely to have a relevant comment to add to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer, which currently discusses similar behaviour on another article, also involving numerous sockpuppets. ~~~~ 22:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima Zahra

Ok, so who do we solve it?

are we supposed to represent that event in every single biograhy of the partisipants?

What is your solution?

--Striver 13:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you where correct in that it was not righ of me to revert to the misspelled version, i have corrected that now.

I hope well come to a good solution with the "Events" articles.

Just a few questions:

Do you agree that its in acordance with wikipedia policy to report as much details as possible?
Do you agree that it cant be repeated in the biography of every single individual?

I would also like to inform you that im planing to greatly expand the number of events to report.

Peace!

--Striver 13:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Than you for your detailed answer, i appreciate it much!

Now, as you self stated, if the Dog poop girl event is worthy of a article, then so should a event that billions of people use to derive their behavior from.

As for making a story, im not doing anything original, i just copy paste the hadith as it obviously is describing the event. One says Muhammad (as) was harassed by Abu Sufyan, and does mot mention Fatimah (as). The other mentions Fatimah (as), but not Abu Sufyan. one does not exlude the other, and if anyone thinks so, I'm more than happy to remove it or change it to a disputed event. But as long as nobody does that, i don't see why there is a problem. I mean, its standard prosigure to use many sources to write a article, no article gets all of their sources from the same book. Acualy, im doing just that, pringing all facts from the same book.

Now, its not original research, since I'm not doing any research except for googling for the events. And thats standard as well.

I mean, do you think ww2 got all the material from the same source? Of course not. Is it a problem? Of course not. Is it original research since they put it in cronologiacal order intead of just alphabeticly stating "this book says this" and "this book says this".? No of cource not, putting together a evident cronological event is not original research. Is there controversies? Well, we will deal with that when it comes, no point in saying "no sahaba events since it can lead to controversies". try changing "sahaba" in that sentence to "war". Or why not "poop".

I actually do find non-primary sources that discus the hadith, that his how i put together Events with the Sahaba 1. Is that more deserving a article than poop girl? Is it original research?

Those links you gave me are great, ill make sure to use them to find better second hand sources!

wow, while searching i found a non-primary source about event 3 that basically was agreed with mine in most details. i put it the external link section.

You are completely right when saying that all websites are not serious, but building a site like answearing-ansar.org takes at least as much work as publishing a book. If the source is found i a random "one owner one conributer" site, then i could agree its week, but that is not the case with prominent sites like "islamic q and a".

regarding event 3, as i told you, i just found a non-primary source coming to the same conclusion as me, although they omitted some smaller details that where obvious in the hadithes.

If one source says "mike ate a burger, then went to work" and another source says "mike went from work to home", is it original research to state "mike ate a burger, then went to work and then went home"? No, of course not. If i where to introduce a alternative view on the relativity theory, or start a new religion, that would be OR. My basic argument is that a random search on google brings several cites that put together the event in the same manner i did.

I mean, shouldn't poop girl be wikisource since its just something from some newspaper? Why does it get a article and not x wikisources, one for each newspaper that reported it?

regarding the title, i have a hard time believing that all the events that the sahaba when trough have a separate name. Do you think that all those events are named? If you don't aprove of the name for the article series, pleas contribute with a alternative name, i would love a name that does not make people think twice.

As i said, the event i not fully described in a single hadith, several hadith describe some aspect of the event, and its not more origibal research to put that together than to read several books and make ww2 on it.

I have followed your advice and saved all the articles.

I eagerly anticipate you response, explaining to me if any of my conclusions are incorrect, and why they are.

A pleasure sharing thoughts with you, excuse my lousy spelling.

Peace!

--Striver 00:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salam!

Hi, just for the record, I don't particularly find dog poop girl worthy of entry, but, wikipedia as a whole (through VfD) does.

Well, if WP says thats ok, then... you get me.. or no, it was actually your who brought it up, so i mean: I agree with you :)

Conclusion 1: Less relevant events deserve get attention on WP

Now, it doesn't exactly seem kosher, but let's compare events with the sahaba # with dog poop girl. Dog poop girl is something strictly documented. There are photos, an apology from the lady, etc.

If the point is to say that the event does not deserve a article since its not properly documented, the we should also scrap the Muhammad article, since it has the exact same source: Hadith.

Conclusion 2: It has been documented in the same way as the Muhammad article.

This was all reported in the news and Korean bbs world as dog poop girl, thus giving name to the article. Events with the Sahaba does not have that same clarity. It's some nameless event that doesn't appear to be important enough to be named in the literature. No source outside of striver seems to call it "events with the Sahaba #". So, whereas dog poop girl has a verifiable title that they can source others using, your title was made by you.

I agree totaly. If you have a better tittle, we'll change to it in no time! Im tired of having the article bullied (no offence) cause the title sucks. Bu it can come upp with a better alternative :(

Conclusion 3: I also think the title sucks.

I know you are not making anything up in the sense of new material but any time you add report on something you add a degree of POV. I am not sure if you are familiar with the school of thought, but... well, the basic idea is that all history is un-objective. Some facts can maybe be objective in themselves but, in the scheme of things they cannot be because of selective reporting. So, just the fact that you chose that case adds a sense of bias to it.

I agree that i can be a problem. But does that mean that the article should not be written?

I mean, Jihad i a POV nightmare magnet, put nobody puts it upp for Wfd, do they? I mean, realy should we delet a article since it its hard to NPOV? And anyhow, the article is telling that it IS pov, it says it IS presenting Muslim POV of the event. Maybe whe sould rename it to "Muslim view of things Sahaba did" ? I mean, dosent The Holocaust have the same issue, isnt it non-nazi pov? Whould a Nazi agree that its NPOV?

Conclusion 4: Lets handle POV issues when they arrive.

Now, this probably won't convince you, but the fact that it appears like you are arranging the hadith into a story (and people will argue that hadith are not a NPOV source to report on) and therefore it's not exactly original research in the typical sense, but it still counts.

About hadith not being NPOV, see Conclusion 2

About reporting a single story, how is that NPOV? I mean dog poop girl is also a sinle story, but does it make NPOV? I realy dont get that argumetn, you maybe need to expand on it?

I mean, sure, somebody might think "o poor Abu Jahl, Striver only bringing the hadith that portrays him in a bad manner", but they can alwyas make event #5 where the good side of Abu Jahl is reported... I mean, dosent the Hitler article have the same problem, why arent all the cozey stuff he did reported? Like the time he smiled to that random girl or bought some flour to his mother?

I dont get that, of cource im only presenting the parts i like, but so what? If anybody thinks i missed something, lett them add it, it shouldent stop me from describing A event, they can always describe ANOTHER event. And that is the MAIN issue, This is A SINGLE event per article, how can describing a single event be pov? If the single event is pov, then whe can fix it, but somehow you seem to imply that the whole series is going to be Muslim pov, and hence NPOV.

Well, firstly, that dosetn work, for in that case you should have deleted all the "rightly guided caliph" referens befor i helped to non-sunnifie them.

Secondly, the article it self IS sayng that it IS represnting Muslim pov!

Conclusion 5: The article itself is sayng it is reporting Muslim pov of the event.

Did i miss your point?

Because you are putting together primary sources.

Brother, Bukhari isnt primary sources, its a cholars work. His name was "Muhammad Ibn Ismail Ibn Ibrahim Ibn al-Mughirah Ibn Bardizbah al-Bukhari".

I just didnt go for random hadith in random book, the Bukhari and Muslim collection are supposed to be all authintic, so its not a primary source. Im quoting his collection and puuting it together, something he didnt bother to do, he put one her and one there.

Bro, i mean, its like quoting five newspapers in a article to make a complete story, what is the diffrense? What is the diffrens bettwen quoting five newspapers or quoting five Bukhari books?

Conclusion 6: bukhari is like a newspaper, its published by Bukhari, what the problem with quoting five newspapers to make a article?

If you were Peter Sells and you wrote a book about it then we could quote your book and add it. But you're striver and you are supposed to have no opinion about the primary source material.

Actualy, manny times i dont even quote Bukhari, i quote a prominent website like www.al-Islam.org!

Conclusion 7: I even sometimes quote 3:rd party sources (website) that have worked on the material of the second hand source(Bukhari).

I was reading the sources you gave (for Event 1) and I'm not sure. They seem to be the kind of source that some have questioned your use of before. They aren't really of encyclopedic standard.

Bro, have you taken a closer look at what you are criticizing?

Take a look:

Events_with_the_Sahaba_1, the source i gave is

http://www.alinaam.org.za/fazaail/umar.html

there is 926 hits on OTHER sites that link to it: [3]

as for the other one

http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/seerah/0019.htm

there is 1650 hits on OTHER sites that link to it:

[4]

But that doesnt matter, that story generaly accepted, it was on the Umar article for a long time and nobody complaind. Here are some other sources for the same event:

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/01_umar_bin_al_khattab.htm http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/02_umar_bin_al_khattab.htm

Bro, nobody complains about that event.

Conclusion 7: It was in the Umar article, nobody complained. Even tough, that only justifies the removal of that event, not the whole concept.

So when you combine that without being able to use a real name for the article it creates a problem. Have you found anything in libraries or on google print? Do these events go under any name? I think that will be important. gren 21:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No bro, they dont all have a name. Of cource not. Do you name every event in your name? Do you name even the important events in you life?

I mean, you know when Bush meet that random important president, did that have a name?

Of course, whe could invent some name, instead of Events with the Sahaba 1, whe could rename it to "when Umar beat upp her sister" or "when Umar made Kabbab run away" or "Umar's firs Quran recitation" or "Umar's first ablution" or whadever... I have no problem with that, whe can do that if it would make people happier... i personaly see two objections to it:

Its up to POV how it will be named
Ill need to justify every single event to everybody that dont get that even small events matter in the life of the sahaba. And infor everybody that poop girl, and... drag this whole argumentiation all over again. I wont have to to it if the concept is justified.

My idea is a simple soulution to a simnple problem:

Wikipedia can go inte small events. Like poop girl. or Colonsay. Actually, every five times you push this special:random link you gett something realy small and worthless in most peoples eyes.

Given that, im justified to retell the WHOLE life of the Sahaba. Now, here commes two problems:

1: Am i supposed to duplicate all events that involed several persons in all those perons article?

2: Does it all fitt in one single article?

The best solution is to have it in smal articles that are linked to.

And onther added benefit is that you can categorize the articles afterwords.

For example, you can take all the event when some Shaba got tortured by a Umayyad and link the it ot the "persecuted Muslims" article. Or link every vers of the Quran to the article that was associated whit its revelation, and so on... I mean, it has sooo many benefits to put every event in a separat article that i don get why everryone hate the idea!

I mean, C'mon, im trieng to benefit Wikipedia, not harm it!

Peace!

--Striver 20:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Authentic Matthew

Perhaps I've been a bit patronising with my 'this is complicated' attitude. But it is. I'm going to sit down this evening (GMT), if I can and set down my thoughts on the issue. I tend to think the topic is invalid itself. 'Authentic Matthew' is not a common scholarly term - and what it could denote (a source specific to Matthew distinct from Mark, Q or Luke) is better discussed under Matthew's gospel or The Synoptic problem. This article is connecting some important debates that are discussed elsewhere in order to push a non-notable theory. In short, I think this article should be deleted and not ammended - it is not needed in any form. --Doc (?) 18:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help on Sari

Gren, I'm having problems with Vagab, who was apparently the author of the old sari article. He doesn't like me messing with his precious prose. He doesn't seem to visit Wikipedia all that often, but when he looks, he reverts to HIS version. I've rewritten it several times, trying to incorporate as much of his prose as I could, but he seems incapable of compromising at all. We seem to be in a revert war. I'd appreciate some help with the reverts, if you could. Zora 11:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gren, thanks for the look at the article. I will try to rewrite using some of your suggestions. Also, I think I can incorporate more of his material re the Kerala two-piece sari, actually having found pictures of one online. His version is so confusing that I just cut it out. Also, I think I can set up a section for "history of the sari" which might incorporate some of his material. But ... I think it's his clunky prose that he's protecting with all his might. I hate that. I've noticed, in working with various writers, that it's the good writers who are much more open to criticism and change. They want their work to have a certain effect, and if they're told that it isn't working, they rewrite. There's a feeling that "there's more where that came from". When it's harder to write, it's harder to jettison the product.

Sorry not to get back to you right away. I was offline for two days while I disassembled my computer set-up, reconfigured the desk, coiled and secured the mass of cords, cleaned and reorganized, and then took my computer to pieces and put it into a new case. A larger case, because my old case was so crowded that connections were working loose. The new case is uber-geeky -- all brushed aluminum with eerie blue LEDs. Zora 09:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a SHE. A mom. I cook, sew, and clean house, among other things. I'm guessing that Vagab is a he, because he seems to have a kinda Hindutva attitude about the sari expressing Hindu culture and philosophy, and apparently no interest in buying or wearing saris. That may be part of the problem, because I've got the sari wearer/user POV. No, I don't wear sari -- I sew and wear salwar kameez, because they're elegant and comfortable -- but I buy saris just because they're beautiful as cloth. Then I sew them into wall hangings or salwar kameez. I could spend thousands of dollars on handwoven saris in a flash!

I haven't had time to rewrite yet, but I will. You made some good suggestions. Zora 00:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Qiyamah

Any expertise you could lend to the Qiyamah page would be much appreciated. Thanks. freestylefrappe 03:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Islamic articles are insane

Sigh. People have completely lost sight of the goal of making a useful encyclopedia, and want to use Wikipedia only for a soapbox, or to score points off someone or something they dislike. Nickbee is enjoying the thrill of arguing with REAL! LIVE! MUSLIMS! on whom he can take out all his venom, Striver and Ya Ali and Zereshk can release all their pent-up hatred of the evil Sunni oppressors (I think there's got to be more to Shi'a Islam than that!), the Salafis and Quran Aloners want to make converts or get rid of disgusting pictures of Muhammad and women in shorts contemplating the Qur'an ... aargh.

The Bollywood articles are much less contentious, and the clothing articles are almost entirely up for grabs. PKM, a new editor, is just a dear and we've been working well together on articles like Victorian fashion. I am often soooo close to bolting out of here. Zora 02:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad

Can you please take a look at the editor's poll I posted at the Jihad talk page here? BrandonYusufToropov 14:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad page

IFaqeer is on indefinite wiki-vacation -- though he'll come back for any controversies related to Urdu poetry <g>. Mustafaa is probably overwhelmed.

I haven't intervened in the jihad page because all I have to contribute is my own views, which aren't encyclopedic unless I publish them -- or find a published author who shares them. I see current-day Islam as being torn between:

Secularists and modernists -- who basically want a nice, comfortable go-to-the-mosque-on-Friday religion that doesn't rock anyone's boat, contradict any modern Western shibboleths, and is as controversial and exciting as being an Episcopalian.

Sufis -- who see Islam as self-discipline and mystical insight, and have completely shut out the ugly world of politics.

Salafis -- who want to return to the glory days of the first three generations of Islam. They were all warriors, including Muhammad, so shouldn't we be warriors too? Salafism-Wahabism slides all too easily into Islamism.

The first two groups are interested in interior jihad and basically block out and deny any evidence that Muhammad and his followers might have engaged in conquest for the sake of conquest, power, loot, slaves, etc. They want a prettied-up version of the first few centuries of Islam, with all the blood expunged. The last group glories in the blood.

If I were a Muslim, I'd probably be in the second group -- but I wouldn't want to tidy up the early history. I think the early Muslims made dreadful, bloody mistakes, that they should not be imitated, that Muhammad made mistakes, that the Qur'an is a human invention, and basically, that there's nothing to save from the original but the Sura of the Lamp in the Niche, and the ideas of Tawhid and Shirk and submission. Not that everything else should be thrown away -- we can pick and choose. Later Muslims may be right on something where Muhammad was wrong. Well, all that would have me killed in a few places ...

Given that I have some extremely individual thoughts on the subject, I'm reluctant to intervene. I think the people who see nothing but blood and conquest in Islam are wrong, and the people who are trying to whitewash the early history are wrong. If they're going to say that people shouldn't do jihad NOW, then they're going to have to admit that Muhammad made a mistake. I'm not sure any living Muslim could do that. Zora 03:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read any Krishamurti? He was raised as a child saint by Theosophists, and ended up preaching rejection of all organized religion. I think he's wrong -- we're social animals and without some kind of social support and feedback, we can turn into monsters. Anyway, Krishnamurti tells this tale:

God and the Devil are walking down the road. The Devil stoops and picks up something. "What is it?" says God. "It's the TRUTH!" says the Devil. "What would you have to do with the TRUTH?" questions God. "Ah, but I'm going to organize it!" says the Devil.

Religion can be pernicious because it's TRUE (which attracts people) and because it's always skewed by human ends, misunderstandings, organizational struggles -- which is the DEVILISH part. True even of my Zen, I think. But I couldn't get on without someone to kick me in the butt occasionally. Zora 03:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interrupt, but I'd like to request your opinion on the splitting of the article Jihad into Offensive Jihad and Defensive Jihad and the putting of these articles in the category "Islamic justifications of Violence". I want to redirect these articles but I am met with opposition from Zeno of Elea.Heraclius 22:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Islam

No problem, understood. It's quite disconcerting from my end too, both the anon IP editing and the fact that so many people want the wacky conspiracy theory nonsense to remain.

I think it's pretty evident that Farhansher's accusations of a conspiracy against a litany list of editors both indicate bad faith on his part and fall under the Wikipedia: No Personal Attacks policy and the whole thing ought to be removed, but I'm not going to be the one to do it as he or one of his friends has already vandalized my user page once, and expressing anything other than utter love for Islam seems to bring down Admin Wrath Upon One's Head. Ni-ju-Ichi 03:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are wrong. He accused specific people of being part of a conspiracy and cult. This is expressly forbidden by the rules of WP:NPA and even given as an example in the page itself. If he had proof, then it would be different, but he has presented no trustworthy proof. Ni-ju-Ichi 03:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

question

I have a question. I know the band isn't notable and most people probably never heard of them but can I atleast finish the articles or do I have to stop now to keep it all from being deleted? Wikipedia Username 06:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'm putting what you told me to put on those pages now. I kind of thought it was going to be a bad idea to put member pages, but I just put it anyway, so now they're gone. Wikipedia Username 06:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing, how do I make a backup of the page? Wikipedia Username 06:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I agree that all Muslims should not be portrayed as violent animals as some Wiki editors are trying to do. There is really no point in trying to demonize an entire religion, the only solution to extremism in Islam is to give support to those who wish to moderate it . Here on this encyclopedia we see people who'd rather that all Muslims convert/die instead of reforming their religion. It is really quite sad.Heraclius 15:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your Conversion

Are you a Muslim? If not, you should convert. Otherwise it is intolerant to make changes to any Muslim related page. I look forward to you converting to Islam. I forsee that you will marry a great Muslim man and make him happy. Only then will you be free from chains of oppression. Saduj al-Dahij — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saduj al-Dahij (talk • contribs) 11:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has got to be a joke...Heraclius 15:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suspecting an islamophobe masquerading actually.--Tznkai 17:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it is, it's funny. gren 19:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

She would make a wonderful Muslim bride! I forsee it! Saduj al-Dahij 20:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Germen's list

I do think it is inappropriate. I suggest you ask him politely to remove it, or at least your name. If he refuses, make a note on his rfc. If nothing comes of it, I suppose you'll have to file for arbitration. dab (ᛏ) 19:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange being put on a list. It's somewhat of a complement. He said that I have a "well-developed feeling for fair play" which puts me in the "probably Muslim" category. Gren is in that category too.Heraclius 21:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sidrat Al Muntaha

I started a stub, and hopefully in the next few days will go around to outputting something useful there, but I put the stub in case someone wishes to contribute. This is in reply to your "I want" --GNU4Eva 04:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Islam

I see your point, though before I changed my vote I'd want to know which more important critic should be linked to instead. Simply removing the link seems to be part of a drive to remove critical references; I agree with you on the first part of the poll, but this part seems to me to be a step too far unless some other, more notable critic is mentioned in his place. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA for Germen

Please be aware that, in light of the RfC against Germen, I have raised an request for arbitration for him. Axon (talk|contribs) 10:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

new vfd

The prior VFD that you voted at ended with no consensus, a new VFD has been opened at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Historical persecution by Muslims. ~~~~ 18:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]