Talk:Ali Sina

Archives of older discussions may be found here:

Archive 1, Archive 2

Bold edits

I've made some bold edits. I'll rreplky more when this talk page is archived and my browser isn't crying. - FrancisTyers 23:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Fayssal :) You'd done it while I was still trying to type. As I said, I've made some edits, moved the external links down, removing duplication. Removing some quotes to wikiquote. Trying to cut down on these damned quotes. Wikipedia isn't wikiquote ;) Paraphrase guys! This article could do with being a lot shorter. I have nothing in this though, so I won't be offended if you revert any of my changes. - FrancisTyers 23:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've changed all the links to footnotes *cool*, so what I'd like to do is remove the "views and beliefs" and "criticism" sections. There are way too many links to his FFI page, this isn't a directory. If no-one disagrees I'll be bold in a few days. - FrancisTyers 19:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold. - FrancisTyers 16:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have been bold again, this article really needs to try and avoid being a magnet for rhetoric. We aren't here to argue a point. - FrancisTyers 10:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert

note: I wrote the message below on Anonymous Editor's talk page , he is now an admin apparantly and instead of replying , he simply deleted the message see here [1].

I commented out sentences which I questioned the validity of. There is evidently a concerted effort on the part of a group of editors to insert their strong POV on Ali Sina' page, perhaps you may have even sympathized with such edits the past but you are now an Admin and I would therefore request that you do not blindly revert without making an attempt to resolve the dispute involved which is what one would expect from an admin. --CltFn 21:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

CltFn, I know that you have been here long enough to know that you can't just hide sentences without discussing them. [2]. Why I deleted your comment is because it is pointless. I have over and over tried to help editors solve their disputes with you and you do the same things over again [3]. Every page you edit seems to start revert wars, so I want you to read WP:NPOV before you continue again. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

And I am sure that you have been here long enough, AE, to know that it is called "commenting out" and not "hiding". Nobody is hiding anything here so try to assume good faith for a change, and end your attempts to make everyone that disagree with you look suspicious... Re the removal of the comment on the talkpage... Well, you where just talking about hiding things? -- Karl Meier 22:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A talk page of a user is the user's talk page Karl. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 06:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As for I , I have in good faith re-read the WP:NPOV and will make every effort to abide by its principles.

As it states :

To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents.

In light of this principle , I take it then that AE will no longer obstruct the presentation of other significant views on the Islam series of pages in accordance to the WP:NPOV--CltFn 22:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

And I take it that you and Karl now understand that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and will stop making personal attacks against editors who already knew this? And good to hear that you have read the policy on assuming good faith and neutrality. That will surely bring changes in your editing. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 06:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you accuse me of personal attacks AE? So what personal attacks have I made? please be specific or end your campaign of mudthrowing and false accusations me and other editors around here. -- Karl Meier 11:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I had added editorial notes to the statements which were obviously (as far as facts are concerned) false, but they were deleted. Author of this article claims, that M. Asadi's chalange was never met by Ali Sina. As you can read here [4], the chalange was met and M. Asadi's claims were refuted. S. G. 09 February 2006

The notes and the information relating to the challenge, if there was any have been deleted. Please do not use Wikipedia as your personal blog. - FrancisTyers 08:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk threads from website

Please do not include personal analysis of talkpage threads from Sina's site. I just deleted this sort of content from the article. Thanks. Babajobu 04:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Despite your plead to NOT TO include personal analysis of talkpage threads from Sina's site somebody edited article about Ali Sina ONCE AGAIN and described Sina vs Asadi chalange, as if Asadi refuted Sina's claims. Reading this article may leave the impression that M. Asadi was the one who challanged A. Sina, which is obviously not true(once again) (see Ali Sina's challange on FFI website: [5]) and that M. Asadi won. Leave judgement to the people visiting the FFI website.S.G. aka Slavomir Grzymski 15:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

People are repeatedly reinserting the analysis of the talkpage thread from the website. This is not the place for original research on talkpage discussions on the site. Please leave it out. Babajobu 12:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

And it's back. Removed it again. Perhaps we could get the page protected? Anonymous - 11:05, 14 February 2006.

In future if anonymous users continue to insert this material against consensus and without discussion, I suggest we treat it as vandalism. I will be adding {{test}} messages to the talk pages of any IPs that do this. - FrancisTyers 10:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC) what is happening

Hi, Ali Sina followers are removing criticism from the criticism section. They want this wiki page to be a glorification of Sina and a one sided view like his website and on the other hand they want a free reign where it comes to criticizing Islam. Why are the wiki editors allowing that?

Speculation

I have deleted the line about Ali's speculated nationality being Indian. Please lets stick to incorporating facts (however few available) rather than speculation. xpanderin

Views and Observations

I am deeply impressed with the development of this page since its inception. Thank you to everyone who has made positive contributions in this regard. I would respectfully like to suggest that the Views and Observations section be expanded one paragraph further to include Ali Sina's views on how Muslims can move towards becoming ex-Muslims. This matter seems to be missing at present. anonymous user, 11:44 AM Pacific Time, 25 February, 2006.

The views section, BTW, appears lifted (not quoted, but copy-pasted) from the very site it references, line by line, word by word. We should either reduce this down to quotes, or maybe discuss fair use, or check if this is a copyvio? Ronabop 23:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If you suspect copyvio you should use the {{copyvio}} template and follow the procedure. - FrancisTyers 23:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done it as there has been no change in a couple of months — I rechecked and you are right. - FrancisTyers 15:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality, Unbalanced, Original Research

The article is plainly one sided. The article uses large quotes which rely on a single primary source. Why haven't I improved the article? Well I tried... - FrancisTyers 23:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please tell us more. Tell us about your experiences. Ohanian 06:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a not alcoholic anonymous, if you want to go sing gumbaya around a camp fire , this is not the place --CltFn 11:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You were right about the {{originalresearch}}, I think {{primarysources}} is more accurate. - FrancisTyers 11:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Alleged Copyright Infringement

I believe that the copyright violation charge was made too hastily. At the bottom of the front page of the website Faithfreedom.org is the following copyright statement: "© copyright Permission is granted to translate and reproduce the articles in this site. Please provide a link to the original page. " Obviously the site owner, Ali Sina, takes a liberal view of quotations taken from his site and used elsewhere. I recommend that the copyright infringement violation charge be dropped and the article be allowed to evolve towards perfection in a more free-flowing manner as it has up until now. ~Anonymous, 7 May 2006 (3:23 PM Eastern Time)

Is it licensed under a license compatible with the GFDL, if not we can't use it. - FrancisTyers 20:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Francis. Please point me to where I might find more info on the GFDL. ~Anonymous, 7 May 2006 (4:33 PM ET)

Never mind. I found it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gfdl ~Anonymous, 7 May 2006 (4:36 PM ET)

Francis, if your strict interpretation of useage of textual writings is correct, then probably paraphrasing what Dr. Sina has written is the best way to go. I still don't think that Dr. Sina would mind the fair useage of quotations from his writings on Wikipedia, especially in light of the copyright statement at the bottom of the front page of his website, http://www.faithfreedom.org that I mentioned before at the beginning of this section on "Alleged Copyright Infringement". Probably this restrictive action that someone initiated is a strategic move to keep people from learning about Ali Sina and his views. Tsk tsk. Anyhow, what is being asked for is not an insurmountable challenge and I'm sure the article will eventually be brought forward again and done so in a way that is impeccable. ~Anonymous, 7 May 2006 (7:30 PM ET)

The article had far more problems than just being a copyvio. You can see (and copy) the previous version here into a subpage and work on it, and when it is free of copyright problems we can restore the article. Have you considered getting an account, you seem like a pretty reasonable kind of guy, and we sure could do with more of those around here :) - FrancisTyers 00:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I wish I had time to devote myself to clearing up the problems of Wikipedia violations contained in the article on Ali Sina. Unfortuneately, I do not. I appreciate the compliment you've given me Francis, and perhaps one day I will, but at present I am afraid that if I formalize my relationship with Wikipedia, Wikipedia might swallow me up. It looks like Politicallyincorrectliberal will have a go at re-writing the article. As you have way more experience and knowledge about Wikipedian protocol than I, and you've taken an interest in clearing up the present controversy, I respectfully request that you serve as Politicallyincorrectliberal's primary guide in Wikipedia protocol as it applies herein. Hopefully your educating him in the whys and wherefores will lead to your having another "pretty reasonable kind of guy...around here" in him. :) If there are more mundane matters of spelling and grammar that I may be of service with during this period, I'll be happy to help, as I expect they can be corrected in a jiffy. ~Anonymous, 8 May 2006 (2:55 AM ET)

Ali Sina's arguments are his quotes from an Interview with Abul Taher, and there is a reference to each argument. Where's the copyvio problem here? It looks like some Islamofascist trying to prevent people from knowing Ali Sina. Anyway, I crated the subpage for now until this problem is resolved. Politicallyincorrectliberal 06:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Politicallyincorrectliberal, as a general rule, on Wikepedia, quotations are not supposed to be used. The reasons for that can be explained by those more knowledgeable than I. Instead of quotations, it is best to paraphrase the meaning of what one has read in the course of doing ones research; ie. put the other persons ideas into your own words here. Good luck with your work on the subpage! I'm behind you for support, and especially happy to help with spelling and grammar. ~Anonymous, 8 May 2006 (3:10 AM ET)

I should add that there on the page that states the copyvio a pointer to where the robot found plagiarism; ie. a direct word for word copy of someone elses words put into the body of the Wikepedia article about Ali Sina. I have taken the initiative and paraphrased that identified line. Here is the original line that the Wikipedia robot found offensive due to apparent plagiarism:

• The transformation is gradual and incremental and often unnoticeable to the victims but it starts with their first flirt with Islam.

You can see it highlighted in yellow here:

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:b1Yh482Gq4oJ:www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina50827p2.htm+%22The+transformation+is+gradual+and+incremental+and+often+unnoticeable+to+the+victims+but+it+starts+with+their+first+flirt+with+Islam.%22&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=4

Now here is my paraphrased alternative which I think would not be found guilty of copyvio

• According to Sina, the transformation from regular person to victim of Islam is slow and often imperceptible, and begins with their initial dalliance with Islam.

I hope this helps you see what the rules of the Wikipedia game require of the players in this round. It is not really enough, because if you have clicked on the link that leads to highlighted text, and scroll down to the part that is highlighted, you will see that although only one line has been highlighted, the rest of the paragraph is likewise offensive because they too are identical to what has basically been copied and pasted into the article about Ali Sina. If the ideas contained therein are to be included in the article, they too must be paraphrased like I paraphrased that one line. Do you see what I mean? It's a big job. You might be better off just editing out what is copyvio for now and put in a summary of Dr. Sina's views later on when you've got time to compose your own written understanding of his positions. I hope that all I've written makes sense and is correct. There are more dedicated Wikipedians here who can help you if you do not take a defensive attitude, but accept their offers of guidance with grace. That is, try to hold off on calling them all Islamofascists, okay? LOL! ~Anonymous, 8 May, 2006 (3:32 AM ET)

• The article features sourced quotes from the author, that are attibuted to the author. There is no copyvio there. --CltFn 12:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Quotes come with quotation marks, these were directly lifted and unquoted. An article that is made up of a ton of bulleted quotes is crap, this is not Wikiquote. - FrancisTyers 12:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

So why not fix the quotation marks issue, instead of wasting everyone' s time with a copyvio tag. You could have said on the talk page , these quotes need to have quotation marks.--CltFn 12:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Did someone just call me an Islamofascist? - FrancisTyers 12:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear CltFn, Francis is a very busy member of Wikipedia with a fair amount of seniority (in www years), having been an active member since at least December, 2004. It is not his job to take someone's error and correct it for them. He has been kind enough to participate in this discussion and clearly state what the copyvio that someone else leveled against this article, named - and I quote - "Quotes come with quotation marks, these were directly lifted and unquoted. An article that is made up of a ton of bulleted quotes is crap, this is not Wikiquote." He deserves thanks. Even the person who leveled the copyvio tag deserves thanks, regardless of his inner motivation, because it is likely to result in an uplifting of the quality of the article on Ali Sina. I kind of agree with Francis that the copy and paste job bullets is more what one would expect from a junior high school student who hasn't yet been taught the meaning of the word "plagiarism" than a writer of encyclopedic articles. If you look at who writes encyclopedic articles in hardbound paper encyclopedias you will see people with names that end with Ph.D., D.D. and M.D. They know better than to copy and paste other people's writings and present it as something original. Anyhow, if you look at past discussions around the time that the copy and paste job was first done, there were Wikipedia members complaining about it not being proper form for Wikipedia, and because of the unproductive attitude held by the pro-Ali Sina enthusiasts working on the page at the time that any obstructions that get in the way of putting Ali Sina's views on Wikipedia must be the work of Islamofascists, the complaints were disregarded. There is no reason why Dr. Sina's views cannot be presented here at Wikipedia at length so long as they conform to the rules of Wikipedia. Personally, I love Ali Sina, and hope that eventually a page about him as long as the page about Martin Luther King, but if you look at the page for him, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_luther_king, or any of the other Nobel Peace prize winners (and I fully expect Ali Sina to be awarded one of those prizes himself one day), you will find few quotations from their writings, and what quotes are there are put into quotation marks or set off from the main text with stylistically correct indentation from both the left and right margins. Why didn't I say so myself back then? I was busy. I am still busy, but the situation has now reached a crisis point, so I'm putting in my two cents worth, and also volunteering to help with fixing up spelling and grammar, so that you, or Politicallyincorrectliberal, or anyone else who is willing to take the time to create a full explanation of Dr. Sina's views of the threat of Islam and how it insideously works its way into non-Islamic societies and tries to take them over, and as well (I hope; see my comment above, under the heading "Views and Observations") Dr. Sina's views and observations on how the process is reversed(!) and how people who are muslims are helped to become freed from the shackles of that controlling ideology, that you or they can do so without having to worry about perfect spelling or grammar. I might even be willing to tweak the language a bit when I edit it later. But one thing I will not do is paraphrase the entire long block of quotes. I simply cannot afford the time that takes. I leave that to someone else, or else leave it out for now and we can attend to the matter later. ~Anonymous 8 May, 2006 (12:34 PM ET)

I see that you have your own views about how to write wikipedia articles , but they are your own views which others may or may not share. But as far as this article is concerned and the topic at hand , ie; the alleged copyvio , the fact is that it is not a copyright violation . Why? Because if you go to the faith freedom web site and scroll to the bottom of the page you will find the following statement:

© copyright Permission is granted to translate and reproduce the articles in this site. Please provide a link to the original page.

The article thus conforms to those requirements.--CltFn 02:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

CltFn, the absolute minimum would be to add quotation marks to that which are quotations. I've now taken care of that as a stopgap measure against deletion, as mentioned in my comments that you can read in the history of the changes to the temporary document which had been put up by Politicallyincorrectliberal on the 8th of May, 2006. Go with the flow, man. Wikipedia is about co-operation and consensus. ~Anonymous 9 May, 2006 (3:02 AM ET)

Will some admin please remove the copy vio tag

There is no copyright violation . read my last comment above this section.--CltFn 02:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that I've put in quotation marks, combined with the broad-based permission grant by Dr. Sina at the front page bottom of his website you and I both have mentioned, the article may (or may not) pass inspection as is. My reason for uncertainty is because of the intricacies of GFDL licencing, which I'm not very knowledgeable of. I am hoping for further improvements to the article, where present quotations are replaced with independent presentation of Dr. Sina's views in the words of a Wikipedia member (most likely Politicallyincorrectliberal, with whom I've had some off-Wiki chatting) before the deadline, though, to bring the article up to higher Wikipedia standards to ensure its acceptance. I would appreciate any words of encouragement anyone would like to offer. ~Anonymous 9 May, 2006 (3:07 AM ET)

The Copyvio reporting page is here, I suggest that CltFn makes the request there. I would like to point out that the article in the subpage although not a copyvio technically, hasn't taken the advice in the template "Note that simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright violation — it is best to write the article from scratch.".

If you look at the template it says "Unless the copyright status of the previous content is clarified, this page will be deleted one week after its listing. If a new article has been written, it will replace this message.". Meaning that in another 4 days the page will be replaced. I'd like to encourage whoever is actually working on the article to remove the "Sina argues that: Ali Sina's first book, The Islam Threat is going through the editorial review process and will be released soon.", arguing that your book is due to be released... is that even really an argument? and if so, against what? - FrancisTyers 08:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, CltFn, it would be better, in accordance with Francis' helpful suggestion, if you were to do the report of the permissive copyright statement from the bottom of the homepage of FaithFreedom.org rather than I, because you are a registered member of Wikipedia and I am not. Politicallyincorrectliberal has been quiet for the last 48 hours or so. I think that's because he is working on a re-write for the long quoted area in Views and Observations. Hopefully he'll make the deadline in 4 days, I thank FT for helping us keep track of. As for Dr. Sina's book being mentioned in the encyclopedic article, I have no qualms about removing it, and I shall. He actually has three books in the works and plans to write many more, but until any of them are released they are not worth noting. That which is notable is my understanding of what makes entry in Wikipedia worthwhile. Even if a plan is something notable, it is not appropriate to have it included under a "Views and Observations" section heading. Using the Martin Luther King page as an exemplary model, published books belong in a section of their own. When Dr. Sina's books get published, then they will be notable. ~Anonymous 9 May, 2006 (9:35 AM ET)

Having the books in a Bibliography section might be more appropriate. For example other authors, such as the one on the Christopher Hitchens article, which, although not perfect is, in terms of structure and layout an improvement on this one. - FrancisTyers 13:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixing up the problem area

Alright, I've summed up the views of Sina in my own words and placed them into the article, with proper references to the source. If somebody can expand it further and/or formulate it better I will really appreciate it. Politicallyincorrectliberal 21:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Politicallyincorrectliberal, I have tried to "expand it further and formulate it better". I got as far as feeling like I had nearly finished doing so, but when I clicked "Preview", I saw that what I was doing was also messing up the references section lower down on the page, specifically reference number five (5). I don't know how to avoid that problem.

Here is my revised version of the articles Views and Observations section:

==Views and observations==

Sina considers himself a freethinker and a secular humanist. He argues that Muslims around the world suffer from a collective narcissistic personality disorder. They do so, he says, because Muhammad suffered from this disorder, and since they view Muhammad as the ideal person and strive to emulate him, they are inclined to take on this same disorder, and those who are disinclined to do so get pressured to conform or at least not speak out. According to Sina, the collective narcissism causes Muslims to have a victim mentality and feel perpetually oppressed. This sense of oppression leads to anger and lashing out in various forms, including terorrism. Sina claims that Islam should be singled out from other religions because, unlike all other religions, it is a "cult of hate"..

He also argues that since Islam is opposed to the Golden Rule, it therefore is an illegitimate religion..

Sina believes that in order to eradicate Islam people need to reveal the truth about it by quoting the Quaran and the Hadith, which contains shocking stories about the life of Mohammad; such as his pedophilic relationship with Ayisha, his ordering the assasination of critics such as the poet Kab bin al-Ashraf, his attempt to have sex with a woman, Safiyah, the night his followers had murdered her father and husband and many other members of her tribe . Sina has cautioned that the challenge to Islam is most safely done anonymously on the internet where it is impossible for jihadists to lay their hands on those who denounce them. He predicts the internet is the innovation which will cause millions of good people who are nominally muslim to leave it upon realizing the truth of its origins and problematic continuance since the 7th century. It is Sina's hope that sufficient numbers of people will leave Islam in this way and that Islam will then collapse in on itself, like the former Soviet Union did

Is it possible for you, Politicallyincorrectliberal, or perhaps someone else with more skills at working with Wikidocuments than I, to fit it in properly? (Francis Tyers, if it wouldn't be a conflict of interest for you, perhaps you would do us the kindness of easing it into place?) ~Anonymous 11 May, 2006 (8:31 PM ET)

I'm not an expert at working with Wikidocuments, but I've managed to set it in the proper place! :-) Now, will some admin be kind to check the article and see if we can remove the copyvio tag? If not, I would like to know what else needs to be fixed in the article. -Politicallyincorrectliberal 08:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Or not... Whoops, what a mess! I'm gonna try sort this mess out... -Politicallyincorrectliberal 08:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, Mess sorted out! :-D -Politicallyincorrectliberal 08:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete subpage

I notice when I go to the categories in which Ali Sina is listed that the subpage is still on. How do I delete it? -Politicallyincorrectliberal 23:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It will be fixed once the temp page is deleted. Cheers -- Szvest 16:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

"Criticisms" (subsection) needs a lot of work

I was just going through a few of the reference links at the end of each "criticism"-- but it wasn't entirely clear how the reference supported that someone had made that criticsm.

For example, this criticism:

• has a distorted view on the history of Islam [16].

links here: ExamineTheTruth Website

The person on this website, Nadir Ahmed, has published an "edited" version of their public online debate on the link above. The linked site is extremely misleading in the way the dialogue is cut and pasted. Nowhere does Mr. Ahmed charge that Sina "has a distorted view on the history of Islam" but instead shows a page full of vitriol calling Sina, flat out, a "liar."

Now if you want to document that some crackpot called Sina a "liar", that is fine, that is a fact. However, the way it is presented in the criticism section is very misleading. It makes the said party sound like a legitimate source of criticism. This is most certainly not the case.

Also, if you want to add one line to every biography on Wikipedia of "so-and-so called so-and-so a liar" to everyone who's been called a liar by anybody, how ridiculous would that get????????--FairNBalanced 01:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Secular humanist

Here's an quote from Ali Sina's interview with Abul Taher:"I am a secular humanist and do not believe in any religion". It can be found on page 3 of his online interview with Abul Taher.

It is not valid. It should be noted by a third party, not the subject himself! Self-referencing! Use your common sense. -- Cheers Szvest 13:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

His "Rational Thinking" page is hosted on [www.humanists.net humanists.net], a website of Secular Humanism

Humanists.net could publish parts of Mein Kampf and Hitler would never be a humanist. Apart from that, this is what i know:

Humanists.net does not compete with membership organizations. Humanists.net is pleased to host your organization regardless of its national or international affiliation. To learn more, check out our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).from humanists.net

Note: The Humanists.net program is not currently accepting applications for new Web hosting clients. If your group is interested in this service, please check back here periodically.

Humanists.net staff is available by e-mail during normal business hours in the eastern United States (and by chance evenings and weekends) to help with e-mail and site problems or to answer general questions.from humanists.net.

What is important for us is:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox -- Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability.see Wikipedia policy

Please note that Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site. see wiki policy

Cheers -- Szvest 23:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

How does including Sina into a category (where he belongs) an example of "Advertising". Your answer didn't make any sense as a reply to the issue at hand. --FairNBalanced 04:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As I noted in the revert summary, a category "Secular Humanist" would be more accurate, but one doesn't exist. Only "Secular Humanist Wkipedians". However "Humanist" is still accurate, there's no reason for you to find this so offensive. --FairNBalanced 04:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised that you didn't get the message. I find nothing offensive but i do find offensive that wikipedia could be a soapbox! In your case, X sells a service to Y and X says Y is a Humanist. In wikipedia, this is called Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. So if humanists.net says Mr Sina is a humanist, wikipedia cannot follow. I hope you understand why i am an administrator and not a reverter or being offended by anything personal. I'll surely accept to include Mr Sina in any category once academic organizations see it right. Waiting for that moment, commercial organizations are not to be based on here. Cheers -- Szvest 17:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Advertising? Soapbox? How does anyone gain financially by listing Mr. Sina in a Wikipedia category that he fits in to? You have yet to explain that. You're not very bright are you... I understand that you ARE an administrator, but certainly not "why" you are one, other than you slipped through the cracks. Why are you so skeptical that Mr. Sina is a Secular Humanist? It's pretty harmless to categorize him as such. --FairNBalanced 19:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are mixing stuff up. You cannot categorize someone as a humanist or a serial killer just because you think so. What was the basis? A commercial website identifying someone as such? I hope it is clear now.

By the way, i told you about the rules and policies in detail and noted that i am an admin and what i do is part of my duty here. So please refrain from attacking me personally as you did here. Cheers -- Szvest 19:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

He has a history of throwing insults at people and soapboxing. I just checked his contribution list. He who shouts the loudest wins. Look at his user page too. I think the stereotype picture is probably against the rules here too. --Monkeybait 23:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate Fayssal's call for you to stop making personal attacks. They are against Wikipedia policy and repeated infractions will result in a ban. Regards, - FrancisTyers 00:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I would compile a list of soapboxing and personal attacks:

• [6],[7], [8], [9], [10], [11],...aww, screw it, just use this [12]. There are just too many to list.--Monkeybait 00:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Monkeybait, your personal attack against me here [13] was uncalled for and against Wikipedia policy. Some of the links you included were not personal attacks nor soapboxing, and accusing me of such constitutes a personal attack. --FairNBalanced 04:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Chronicling your personal attacks and pointing out that you commit personal attacks is not a personal attack. Thanks for playing --Monkeybait 04:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a personal attack when you make claims that you can't back up and stalk me like I was Madonna- the way you're going through all my user changes.... It's a little creepy.

For example, you linked here:[14] -this is an insult, not a personal attack. The people I was referring to were neither mentioned by name, nor would they have any reason to see the comment unless they were stalking my contributions (like you). Also, here [15] this is not a personal attack. User:Dbaba and I are on good terms, we just use spirited language when talking to each other. Yeah, thanks for playing. Try again --FairNBalanced 06:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I was kind of more aiming at soapboxing with those two. No worries, mate. I'm not stalking you. Just need to tone it down a bit perhaps. No problems with your politics, just don't call people "not to bright" --Monkeybait 12:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Humanist? I can't find any quotes of him saying he is. He is an atheist, maybe militant atheist, specifically anti-islim. That defines Ali Sina. Also, where are the wikilinks to Humanism, where is the Template:Humanism in this article, the link to Erasmus? Moreover, and more important, where are the links from Humanism to Ali Sina? There is no evidence and no wikibelieve he is humanist. -- ActiveSelective 07:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

ActiveSelective, please read his interview with Abul Taher. Sina mentions on page 3 that he's a Secular Humanist. Politicallyincorrectliberal 09:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay, a first mention. It is a clue of him claiming he is a humanist, yes. But i think it's not enough for writing he is humanist. There is a lot of what he says that is clearly not humanist, so I was very surprised. Just like I am surprised that a "politically incorrect" person works for the supposedly "humanist" website of Ali Sina. Quite a contradictory. Anyway, we'll need independent sources (like other humanists or insitutes) calling Ali Sina "humanist" before it bears any truth value. -- ActiveSelective 11:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

ditto! We'll need independent sources (like other humanists or insitutes) calling Ali Sina "humanist" before it bears any truth value. Morover, Humanists.net is a commercial website. -- Szvest 13:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Alright, may I ask what does disqualify Sina from being a Humanist? As far as I read on his site, he's telling the truth about Islam. If he's lying, how come no Muslim was able to refute him? Here's a short line about Humanism from this link: "Humanism...by the nineteenth century was able to adopt a secular form completely freed from the Christian religion and indeed combating the principal dogmas of this religion" All Ali Sina does is to combat the principal dogmas of Islam. -Politicallyincorrectliberal 23:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

So you know "the truth". "The truth" about islam. As if islam is suddenly this one solid monolith and not as diverse anymore as it always has been. As if Ali Sina writes about general islam, and not about a specific form of islam, the form of his choosing. And "humanism" has become simply atheism now, simply anti-religion? This flat thinking is not explaining truth, but twisting truth. Although I am not a muslim (but an atheist humanist) I do think Ali Sina can be refuted. Quite easily, actually: when writing a wikipedia-article on him, his contradictory ideas will reflect into the article. This very article says that according to Ali Sina, islam has no reciprocity (Golden rule) but when you read the Golden Rule page you'll see islams reciprocity mentioned there. There is more: many islamic rituals are very clearly about reciprocity, like ramadan (suffering shared) and shakaat (donations for the poor). So it is "his" subjective choosing of what to label 'truth', and not "the" objective truth. Writing an article about a preacher is certainly not simply copying what the preacher preaches. So he may wishfully say he's "humanist" but that doesn't make him humanist. -- ActiveSelective 07:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can refute Ali Sina, you can win $50 K. Please send me $2 K after you refute him as finder’s fee. :) OceanSplash 07:42 24 May 2006

What disqualifies Sina from being a Humanist is the fact that nobody, except the subject himself, qualifies him as such. Wikipedia is not a place to judge, qualify or disqualify someone. This answer reflects the same points discussed above. Cheers -- Szvest 15:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Secular Humanism is a belief system, like being a Christian, a Hindu, a Communist, etc. The only person who can decide which belief system he belongs to is the person himself. One must not confuse beliefs with titles. If someone claims to be an architect, a surgeon, or a bishop you are entitled to ask for verification. These are titles. But you don’t need any proof to say what you believe. Your assertion is enough. If Sina says he is a secular humanist that is what he is. No one else is needed to confirm someone else’s belief. This is elemental. If one can not distinguish the difference between beliefs and titles why is this person editing an encyclopedia? OceanSplash 07:12 24 May 2006

You're defending the freedom of personal expression, which is very good but certainly no guarantee for the truth of what is being expressed by a person. If a nutt case says he's a werewolf, because he truely and honoustly believes he is a werewolf, then he also is a werewolf? It is in the actions (not the statements) in which people proof themselves what they are. -- ActiveSelective 07:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sina did not claim to be a "werewolf", and per your invalid analogy... "werewolf" is not a belief system. The only thing you were right about is that 'actions' are what proves people to be what they are. Ali Sina is a humanist, and Osama Bin Laden is a Muslim.

OceanSplash also brought up a valid point. If someone cannot distinguish the difference between beliefs and titles, what makes a person qualified to edit an encyclopedia? As an admin no less? This is why I asked the age- the question was not a personal attack (although it could be taken as a personal attack to someone who is defensive of their weaknesses). My suspicion that our admin here is very young has to do with a lack of wisdom and discernment that generally comes with age. This is not an "attack", but an observation. --FairNBalanced 18:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on these principles, Sina is a secular humanist:

Secular humanism describes a world view with the following elements and principles:

• Need to test beliefs - A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
• Reason, evidence, scientific method - Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
• Fulfillment, growth, creativity - A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
• Search for truth - A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
• This life - A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
• Ethics - A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
• Building a better world - A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.--FairNBalanced 18:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair. Again, this should be confirmed by academics, notable journalists etc... Not us here or the subject himself. We don't really care if the subject is or not a humanist. What we care about is that the categorization should come from notable sources as explained below on my answer to the list of websites you provided. Cheers -- Szvest 19:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

This is absurd. Do we need to ask X what Y believe? The belief of a person should not be confirmed by anyone except by himself. If you claim to be a doctor, you need a proof. You must provide a certificate authenticated by a known institution for us to believe you. But when it comes to your belief, you don’t need to bring any certificate. All it takes is your confession. If you confess to be a Muslim then that is what you are. If you confess to be a humanist, then that is what you are. This discussion is ludicrous. It just highlights the lack of qualification of the editors of Wikipedia. This discussion is so silly that it is amazing that it’s actually taking place. What is next? Should we also prove that snow is white and water is wet? I reiterate my question: If one does not understand this much logic, what qualifications he has to be the editor of an encyclopedia? OceanSplash 7:43 May 26 2006

Flat-out Lie

"What disqualifies Sina from being a Humanist is the fact that nobody, except the subject himself, qualifies him as such. " -Szvest 15:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see below. --FairNBalanced 05:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. With respect to my Flat-out Lie, please see my answer below. Cheers -- Szvest 19:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Ali Sina, well known humanist

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/jahed/bush_2nd_term.htm http://ali-sina.biography.ms/ http://www.arabible.org/pages/1/page1.html?refresh=1119381162912 http://caosblog.com/937 http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-59312.html http://www.writers.net/writers/42229 http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/commentdetail.asp?ID=18349&commentID=566277 http://www.afghana.com/afghanforum/viewtopic.php?t=1147&view=next&sid=96c227977080ff18e9473e56a0204b4e http://luwaran.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=260 http://tracifish.blogspot.com/2005_10_23_tracifish_archive.html to name a few --FairNBalanced 05:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that you know that blogs, forums and the kind are not reliable in Wikipedia. Please carefully read this:

he policy page that governs the use of sources is Wikipedia:Verifiability. About self-published sources, which includes books published by vanity presses, and personal websites, it says: "Sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight... Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications."

Note that Wikipedia itself does not currently meet the reliability guidelines; however, nothing in this guideline is meant to contravene the associated guideline: Wikipedia:Build the web. Wikilink freely. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using online sources for more explanations). Cheers -- Szvest 19:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

You are still a liar as your quote stands. Even though you don't "believe" the sources, Ali Sina is not the only one referring to himself as a secular humanist. You may want to consider changing your quote to say "What disqualifies Sina from being a Humanist is the fact that nobody, except the subject himself and lots of people whom I don't consider to be reliable sources (Wikipedia rules or not), qualifies him as such."

My charge that you are unqualified as an administrator also stands, as evidenced by your hypocrisy. Ali Sina is listed in the category "Atheists" and you have taken no action to remove him from this category. Apparently this categorization isn't as offensive to you, even though the same qualifications exist in this case as in the humanist categorization- that is to say, nobody but Ali Sina and "unreliable third party" sources refer to Sina as an "Atheist". I would guess that you are either a Muslim yourself or sympathetic to Islam for the inconsistent editing you have displayed in this article. No that's not a "personal attack" but an observation.--FairNBalanced 20:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't disqualify or qualify subjects. Abide by wikipedia rules, policies and guidelines and save us some time.

On the other hand, this is the second offence against me Fair. I am not a liar. Calling me a liar is a personal attack and not an observation. Please refrain from attacking me in person. Indeed, it's none of your business to guess about my beliefs in case i'd have some. Cheers -- Szvest 21:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Perhaps telling one lie does not make one a "liar". This is the only lie I have caught you with, but it is documented for all to see.

• You claimed that nobody other than Sina refers to Sina as a humanist. This is quite simply untrue, at least as you stated. Were your answer an honest one, you would state that you "cannot verify that other people referring to Sina as a humanist qualifies him as such." Despite Wikipedia rules of what qualifies a source or not, you still made the claim that nobody calls Sina a humanist but himself. This is wrong. A lie consists two factors- (1) a statement that is not factual and (2) intentionally and knowingly making the false statement.

It is possible to make a statement that is not factual, but not be aware of it. This is called a "mistake". People make mistakes, and when honest people are confronted with the truth, they correct their mistakes and acknowledge the error. Despite being shown that plenty of people refer to Ali Sina as a humanist, you made no attempt to correct your false statement "What disqualifies Sina from being a Humanist is the fact that nobody, except the subject himself, qualifies him as such." Thus, pointing out that you have lied (and one who lies is a 'liar') is not a personal attack or an insult, but an observation of factual events as they have occurred on this Talk page. This is not to say you are a habitual liar or a pathological liar- I don't know you well enough to make the charge, nor do I think it's true. If you acknowledge your mistake, I will rescind my analysis and acknowledge that you are not a liar... only that you mistated your case. --FairNBalanced 07:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

By the same token, Sina has been classified an "Atheist". (see the bottom of the page). Atheism is a personal belief system as well as secular humanism. Only Sina and other "unverifiable, non-notable" third parties have referred to Sina as an Atheist. Yet, you will allow this edit to stand , but not the humanism classification. The hypocrisy is quite apparent, in that you have made no attempt to delete merely because this classification doesn't 'offend' you. Maybe you are unsure of what secular humanism is? Perhaps you are thinking this sounds like "humanitarian" and you're getting confused? Regardless, your ability to act on behalf of Wikipedia as an administrator editing this page is disappointing to say the least.

--FairNBalanced 22:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC) --FairNBalanced 07:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair, when i say nobody is considering Mr Sina as a humanist i really mean it! The only guys who do that are bloggers and forum posters. This means nobody as we are talking about notable sources!

You state above that Only Sina and other "unverifiable, non-notable" third parties have referred to Sina as an Atheist. Yet, you will allow this edit to stand , but not the humanism classification.The hypocrisy is quite apparent... Let me tell you that there's no hypocrisy involved. It is a fact that non-notable people call Mr Sina a humanist and so the statement should appear whereas we cannot categorize him as such here for the reasons i stated many times. I also invite you to re-read the intro at Atheism:

Although many people who self-identify as atheists tend to share common skeptical concerns regarding evidence and often adhere to philosophies such as naturalism and humanism, there is no single ideology that all atheists share, nor are there any institutionalized rituals or behaviors. Additionally, although atheism is commonly equated with irreligion in Western culture, many atheists do not actually hold spiritual and religious beliefs. Atheism is also not equivalent with antitheism, the active opposition to theism or God.

It wasn't a mistake neither a lie and if you see that i am not fit to be an administrator you simply can report my actions. Otherwise, it will be me that will report yours (re calling me a liar). I'm not a supporting this and suggest that you stick to the subject w/o calling people liars (including when you'd be right) according to WP:Civil. Cheers -- Szvest 10:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

You haven't sufficiently answered my questions. What notable third party refers to Sina as an atheist? You should go re-read the definition of Secular humanism. Wow. Simply amazing. I'd be very happy for you to report me. At this point I'd love to see you publicly embarrass yourself over this issue. And until you can effectively address your position, claiming that you are right doesn't make you right. Your "bad faith edits", as Lao Wai put it, won't stand. --FairNBalanced 18:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please provide us w/ a notable source stating that Mr Sina is a HUMANIST! Cheers -- Szvest 18:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Please report me. No really, please. Also, I have one more complaint as per your admin status. You've clearly violated the 3 revert rule. Rather than set an example, you seem to think you are above the law. Apparently there is no law when you're a biased Wikipedia Administrator. I'm going to follow suit. No, not by trying to become an admin. I'm talking about the 3RR. I don't belong as an admin. Sadly, to choose me as an admin would be a more appropriate choice than yourself, but alas, Wikipedia wouldn't be Wikipedia without a few admins with an agenda. Thank you illustrious leader. --FairNBalanced 03:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

First: Let's quit all the personal remarks and personal attacks. It's not allowed and it doesn't help solving the situation here. It only poisons the atmosphere. Anyway, regarding the subject we are currently discussing, I believe that we have at least one notable source that claim that Sina is a humanist, and that is Ali Sina himself. If are not going to accept his claim that he is a secular-humanist, then we need a reason not to do so. We need a notable source that dispute his claim, and that somehow make the question controversial. -- Karl Meier 11:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There are hundreds of Islamic sects each claiming that others are heretic. Does this allow us to disregard the claim of all these sects to be Muslims because other sects do not recognize them as such? Bin Laden or Dr. Palazzi both claim to be Muslims but they are on the opposite sides of the spectrum and each does not recognize the other as true Muslim. Who is to decide which one of them is Muslim and which one is not? You can’t ask X about the belief of Y. How can one testify to the belief of someone else? I believe the problem that our friends face here is that they do not understand the meaning of humanism and think this is some sort of recognition of humanitarian values in the subject, which of course in the case of Ali Sina they are not willing to concede. He must be vilified at all cost. Humanism is a system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth. (See Dictionary.com) as opposed to religions that have God as the center of their philosophy. OceabSplash 18:00 May 26, 2006

I did some research on this in the last 20 minutes or so. Here are some of my observations. I am not an expert on this, so I encourage you to have some reservations on these conclusions.

• First, there are hardly any sources on Ali Sina that could be comfortably called neutral or third-party.
• Being a humanist essentially implies having a certain set of beliefs. There are no fixed criteria to qualify as a humanist. It is the general attitude, rather than specific actions, that defines a humanist. Our actions might not always conform to our beliefs.
• These attitudes include skepticism, rationality, open-mindedness, etc.
• The primary source on a person's beliefs is the person himself.
• However, a person might be lying about his beliefs for whatever reasons, or might even be mistaken, in which case, this needs to be established by a notable authority.
• Just like there are good Christians and bad Christians, there are good Humanists and bad Humanists. Just like Christians can occasionally sin, humanists can occasionally be fanatical and intolerant, although such attitudes are incompatible with humanism. deeptrivia (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that someone is "well-known" is debatable. Myself, I wouldn't say that Ali Sina is well-known. I read a lot of mainstream news, from all over the world, as well as a fair number of blogs, and his name never comes up. As to whether or not he's a "humanist" -- there's no organization of humanists that can admit or eject someone. If it's just that he claims to be a humanist, or a secular humanist, then we write "Ali Sina claims to be a secular humanist" and give a cite. If his followers are calling him a secular humanist, then we say, "His followers call him a secular humanist" and give cites. WP doesn't have to rule on whether he's a humanist or not. We can just report other people's opinions. Zora 23:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Zora on the point that I, too, would not say "Ali Sina is well-known". My apologies on the tongue-in-cheek title to this section "Ali Sina, well known humanist" (yes I created it). This title is not to say that Sina is well known to the general population (he isn't), but to those who are familiar with him, his status as a secular humanist is well known. I really think the crux of this problem is that a certain Wikipedian editor, who sincerely dislikes Mr. Sina, thinks that classifying Sina as a Humanist is an undue compliment. That's wrong. This classification as humanist is neutral, insofar as his belief system is secular humanism.

I noted the inconsistency in this editor's deleting of the Humanist category but not the Atheist category, and was given a seriously deficient response with regard to my observation. Both classifications have to do with a person's beliefs. The answer I received made some vague reference that all atheism does not have a single unified ideology... well guess what, welcome to any other belief system (i.e. Christianity, Islam, etc). I don't like making an admin feel bad, but I refuse to act like a submissive wussy on this this issue. The only thing that seemed to put a temporary stop to this nonsense was when I mentioned the 3RR rule (which was broken by myself and the Admin involved). Of course, I am just some jackass editing Wikipedia, but I'd personally think an admin would not want to get caught breaking the 3RR rule. I've been warned for it myself over on the GWBUSH page for having to get rid of some overly POV edits by some victims of BDS.

I've made the suggestion that the admin block me- not because it is necessary, but I'm willing to sacrifice to make him feel better. You are all a witness that I will never complain about it if he blocks me in this case. I've caused him a good deal of frustration on this issue, and I think it would be therapeutic to get the big red stop sign from him. If I went against my word you would be free to call me a liar. However, I am a man of my word, and I know what it is I just said. --FairNBalanced 07:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Folks this edit war has been going on long enough. As I've explained to Szvest, Wikipedia's policies specifically permit the inclusion of information from a primary source if that primary source is talking about themself. All one needs to show is a verifiable source (or a quote of that individual) saying so. It's that simple. Netscott 00:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Experiment in the Works?

I was thinking of deleting Osama Bin Laden from the category Muslims. So what that the FBI calls him a Muslim? And so does Bin Laden himself... Why should that matter? Some Muslims say Bin Laden has "hijacked" their religion, so Bin Laden is not a real example of a Muslim. Who do you think would mind? --FairNBalanced 05:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT. - FrancisTyers 19:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, this was only an analogy to make a point, nothing more than a "hypothetical" experiment. Thank you for the reference to WP:POINT, fortunately I had no real intention of breaking this rule. --FairNBalanced 06:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What the heck?

Who keeps adding Ali Sina to the "men" category? This category is not a category for male characters, but to man-related issues. Please stop that. -Politicallyincorrectliberal 12:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)