User talk:Germen

Hi Germen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions to the coolest online encyclopedia I know of =). I sure hope you stick around; we're always in need of more people to create new articles and improve the ones we already have. You'll probably find it easiest to start with a tutorial of how the wikipedia works, and you can test stuff for yourself in the sandbox. When you're contributing, you'll probably find the manual of style to be helpful, and you'll also want to remember a couple important guidelines. First, write from a neutral point of view, second, be bold in editing pages, and third, use wikiquette. Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the policies and guidelines page. You might also be interested in how to write a great article and possibly adding some images to your articles.

Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me at my talk page if you have any questions, and you can check out the village pump, where lots of wikipedians hang out and discuss things. If you're looking for something to do, check out the community portal. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing ~~~~.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing! --Spangineer (háblame) 16:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome! Hope you enjoy the place, and don't hestiate to ask if you have any questions. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:23, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy. There is no {{undelete}} template. Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Sorry about making the Archive there, I was acting under a misapprehension, no offence was intended. --Irishpunktom\talk 23:02, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hi

I feel like we're really working at cross purposes, and I want to apologize for my role in that.

Would it be possible for us to set up some kind of meaningful dialogue to discuss the language you're hoping to use, before you start reverting things or making major revisions?

I realize Islamophobia is a controversial topic, and that you and I have different views of this issue. Maybe, working together, we could improve the article.

Before we get into another revert war, could I ask you to propose the specific text you've got in mind, and let people discuss it so a consensus can emerge?

I mention this because some of the edits you've made on this and other pages may have come across to others viewing your work as disruptive. It's possible that you've mistakenly categorized major edits as minor edits, for instance, or that you've made edits that some might consider to be vandalization of pages. Finally, it's possible that some could interpret your stance on Talk:Islamophobia as hostile and judgmental towards other editors.

Assuming good faith is a very important part of the process here, as is relying on verifiable sources, especially when it comes to interpreting the Qur'an and Hadith. As you know, people spend years of their lives trying to master the interpretation of these documents, and I know you don't want to try to create your own scholarship on the fly for this page.

Can we start working together to determine where this page should go? BrandonYusufToropov 14:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Germen.

One man's logic is another man's rabbit hole, I'm afraid. I don't see any problem with consulting (and discussing) verifiable sources, of course, but I should tell you here and now that I think the only way out of this thicket is to acknowledge from the opening of the article that the term is a controversial one, and likely to remain so. So with all that said, how would you open the article? Let's discuss it here. BrandonYusufToropov 23:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Please do not vandalise the RfC: keep your remarks in the Discussion or Response sections only otherwise they will be reverted. You will have plenty of opportunity to defend yourself there and when this RfC is properly published. Axon 09:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, where's the RfC? Babajobu 13:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

I support your work with wikipedia. Don't let the Islamist's get you too annoy'ed. Sometimes it's best to take a break from pig fighting with them and work on other encyclopedic topics. Then you can come back refreshed and ready to pig fight with them some more. Klonimus 06:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Agronomy-stub}} / Agronomy stubs

Hello. I notice that you added {{Agronomy-stub}} to the stub types page. Note that the top of the page states:

"To avoid unnecessary redirects and reverts, please discuss all new stubs types at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria prior to creation of new stubs and placement in articles or tables."

I have therefore moved the entry to the relevant location. Feel free to discuss it there.

--TheParanoidOne 12:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agronomy

Hi, in reply to your questions about agromony editors and an agronomy portal. I can only think of one editor who's especially active on agriculture related topics User:Pekinensis, he does alot of work on tidying and writing crop articles. I think before a portal is considered we should work on the agricultural science page since it is pretty average and get the categorisation mess sorted out. So I think it would be best if we improved some articles before set up a portal. A wikiproject might be effective.--nixie 12:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:SIIEG

List

In the list of interesting people you encountered, how could you forget User:Anonymous Editor? Muwaffaq 14:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

I have made a request for arbitration with regard to your recent behaviour and in light of your apparent unwillingness to take advice or follow the community's rules. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

I noticed that Axon has filed an (in my opinion frivolous) RFA against you. As a suggestion, I think that you might want to take a look at this: Association of Members' Advocates (if you didn't noticed this option already) -- Karl Meier 18:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

mediation

Germen, I am honoured by your request, since I understand it to imply that you are prepared to listen to constructive criticsm from me, and especially since my comment on your rfc page was not particularly friendly towards you. So I am willing to give it a try. But I note that we seem to have some quite basic differences about what is "wikilike". Anyway, I am willing to give fair consideration to your case. prima facie, however, it appears you have rather too many preconceived notions about Islam for you to be well suited for npov editing. I will readily agree that your negative views are not unfounded, and describe aspects of Islam. Disagreement typically breaks out over whether these are major or minor aspects. Npov lies towards delineating precisely which aspects you are talking about at any given moment. Islamic fundamentalism is not identical with Islam. Critics, typically fundamentalist Christian critics, sometimes claim Islamic fundamentalism is really the essence of Islam, but students of Islamic theology and culture (not necessarily Muslims) typically disagree. If you are prepared to look for solutions in that area, I do think your views can be documented without too much trouble. regards, dab (ᛏ) 07:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi Germen, thanks for your gestures of good faith. I should really get some real-life work done right now, but I created User_talk:Dbachmann/Germen_Axon so far, for discussions between the three of us, so I suggest you put that on your watchlist. I suppose mediations will mean that Axon and you debate by proxy (me) whenever there is a danger of descending into fruitless disputes. I cannot solve the problem for the two of you, but I will attempt to be useful as a catalyzer. dab (ᛏ) 09:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image tips

Hello!

Thanks for uploading some pictures to Wikipedia. I wanted to make sure you were aware of some of the requirements and good practices for uploaded images.

  • Pick an image name.
When uploading an image, pick a file name that is short, descriptive, and unique. Remember that many images may be uploaded about the same topic, and remember that names are case sensitive.
  • Source the image.
On the image description page, explain where the image came from. If you created the image yourself, then say so. If it's from the web, give a URL. If it's a screenshot of a movie or game, or a scan from a book, give the title.
  • Provide copyright and license information.
This part is a little bit trickier, but it's very important. The copyright of the image generally belongs to whomever created it.
If it's a photograph you took, or an image you created (modifying an image that already exists doesn't count) in software like Photoshop or GIMP, then you own the copyright. To upload it to Wikipedia, you must agree to license it under the GFDL (which allows anyone to use it, but requires that they give credit to the original author and requires that any further edit to the image be licensed under the GFDL as well) or release it into the public domain (which allows anyone to use it for any purpose without restriction.) Do this by placing an appropriate tag on the image description page, like {{GFDL}} or {{PD}}. Be sure to mention that you created the image. If you're using {{PD}}, you may also want to use {{NoRightsReserved}}, since there is some dispute as to whether one may grant items into the public domain.
If you didn't create the image, or the copyright somehow belongs to another party (like a screenshot, which you might "create", but the copyright belongs to the author of the movie or video game), then you need to find another tag that describes the copyright status of the image. Images used on Wikipedia need to be free for our use and the use of sites which reproduce our content. This means that images cannot have a restriction such as "only for use by Wikipedia", or "for non-commercial use only", or "for educational use". Images without a free license may be usable in certain articles under fair use, but such a use should be justified on the image description page.
  • Describe the image.
To another reader, the image may not be immediately understood. A caption in an article doesn't explain the image to a visitor who sees it on its image page. Put a brief explanation of what is in the image on the image description page, similar to what you might include in a caption on an article.

Some links to Wikipedia pages on this subject:

Copyrights, Copyright tags, Fair use, Image description page, Public domain, Images for deletion, Possibly unfree images, Copyright problems

Thanks again for your contributions. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me at my talk page. kmccoy (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


VfD pollution

Ril enlisted Persecution by Muslims for VfD again, just 24 hours after the article withstood the first VfD. You might be interested to watch it. [1] --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for letting me know it looks like it was kept Yuckfoo 17:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Agronomy portal

From User talk:Pollinator Hi, you seem to be a quite active user on agricultural subjects. I would like your help in improving and expanding the the Agronomy portal, found at Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Agronomy. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? I am greatly interested in agriculture, but my time is somewhat limited, so I was wondering what you have in mind. Pollinator 01:31, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

RFD

hi Germen. regarding the RFD, on User_talk:Dbachmann/Germen_Axon I was just getting the impression that the issue could be resolved amicably, and that it was mainly about the intro. Now I am not so sure, and frankly, confused. Surely you agree that the RTD defines Islamophobia as an attitude that fulfills all of the eight points? Because some of your comments seem to imply that you think the RFD calls islamophobic an attitude that is consistent with any one of these points, which I'll agree of course would be nonsensical. dab (ᛏ) 15:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia

Deny it as you do, but you are a Islamophobe. How can you not be, the way you speak of the Holy Prophet (pbuh)? It does not matter for you though. You will not say such things soon enough. Your country will be a victory for Islam. While you silly Dutch keep aborting your babies, we will use the womb rather than the gun to conquer Holland. Your leaders will allow us to continue immigrating because someone needs to do the real work. Praise be Allah. Saduj al-Dahij 21:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Germen, I'm sure you're smart enough to realize that this guy is a fake ;).Heraclius 21:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rest assured, Heraclius :)--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look what the tricky little bastard did [2].Heraclius 18:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Hi. I have blocked you for 24 hours for what I believe is a violation of the three revert rule. A detailed examination by me of the offending edits can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Germen. While you are blocked, you may continue to edit this talk page. If you feel this block is unwarranted, you may message the WikiEN-l mailing list or the #Wikipedia IRC channel. - Mark 14:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

== I never had the specific intent to revert Axon's or other people's edits as such, but because there was a high frequency of edits and a lousy internet connection it is possible that I unintentionally overwrote edits by Axon or others. As far as now I only acknowledge two deliberate reverts and I do not see a substantial reason why I should be blocked. The user which complained about me, Axon, regularly harangues administrators to intervene in his favour. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Germen, see my talkpage, Axon is asking me if mediation is over. See also his talkpage, I am suggesting you both agree to voluntarily refrain from editing the article, unless you reach consensus on the edit first. I will revert either of you who breaks that agreement, so neither of you stands a chance of pushing your edits through. If you do think this is pointless, however, just say so, and the two of you go off to rfar. dab (ᛏ) 16:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think all Europeans need to be barred from editing the article for, hmm, say a week ;)?Heraclius 16:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
why, is this another misunderstanding? Afaics, you were banned because you edited the article, and nobody claimed you did edit the article after you were unbanned. What am I missing? dab (ᛏ) 15:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamism and fascism

Yes there is a word for it, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Islamofascism decided that this is not a topic that needs to be given much attention in Wikipedia. After much debate the small amount of useful information was merged into Neofascism and religion, where this information belongs. - SimonP 21:21, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome

Thanks! --Briangotts (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC) There is no connection to be found scientifically and historically and ideologically between Islam and Fascism. Islam is against Fascism and all forms of dictatorships. Islam is for freedom and human rights. Don't believe the lies some liars may say.[reply]

Would you mind

Please take a look at the page Din (Islamic term). It has been locked because Heraculis and Striver will not accept quotes from muslims themselves defining the term din. I will appreciate your opinion. And if you have the time please also take a look at the Apostasy_in_Islam, agains Heraculis strongly objects to quotes to make the opinion of the muslims explicit. Thank you Nickbee 16:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heraclius is rv warring on Din (Arabic term) and has announced that other editors have been informed. Nickbee does not seem to be around. Please see if you can talk sense into the rv warrior. Exmuslim 19:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to Islam

Hi. You must use Wikipedia:Footnote3 style for this page. Linking things in "[ ]" make footnote X match up with reference Y. When X should match X. Please don't do that. Your edits are controversial and I will try to work with them and make them better, but to put them up use proper syntax. When you click on reference X make sure it goes to footnote X. Thanks. gren グレン 13:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neofascism

Hey Germen. I don't know how long you've been here, but that article was the subject of a very long, grueling debate. The article's creator (Cberlet) finally managed to establish a consensus. You can keep adding that section, but he will remove it as soon as he gets back. My main problem with your edits is that you're duplicating it at two separate articles, both Islamism and the Neofascism one.Heraclius 14:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Heraclius, I removed that section from islamism (as SimonP did not like it there and he had some point regarding that) so I think the section will do better here. So I did not really duplicate it, rather moved it. Perseonally I believe that while there are similarities between islamism and fascism, equating them is incorrect and comparing those two systems (as far as the vague definitions of islamism and fascism make this possible, though) point by point will be eludicating for Wikipedia readers. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what I'm trying to say is that the Neofascism article is about ISLAM and fascism, not Islamism.Heraclius 14:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heraclius, but islamism is the chain between those two, isn't it? --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism

Sup Germen,

BYT put my article on this informative book up for VfD, I'd be honored if you'd take a look at the article and its VfD. Thanks. User:Klonimus/AINB Klonimus 07:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, however, could you not add a large, originally-researched section to that article? What I'm trying to say is that there's no point in adding sections that will get reverted within hours, or even a day. They will not last long. I know how much you hate Islam, but you are just wasting your time when you add those sections. Anyways, please don't take this the wrong way, I've had the Neofascism article on my watchlist for a very long time, and what I did was totally independent of SimonP. We are not teaming up on you or anything.Heraclius 15:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do not hate islam, but I hate Sunnism and islamism for obvious reasons. OK, I accept. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 15:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnism is a great religion, the greatest religion on Earth frankly and by pure ideological standards.

In fact sunnism is for human rights, for freedom and for universal happiness for both the man and the woman.

Unlike modern sexist theories like judaism and christianism and paganism and chiism.

How can you point your finger to a connection between sunnism and terrorism and fascism ? Do you have any proof or are you simply pretending -- or are you lying -- ? You pretend that sunnism is fascism but that is not the case.

In fact sunnism fights all forms of fascism and all forms of dictatorship.

Just keep in mind that sunnism is historically the first religion who fought women oppression : prophet Muhammed صلى الله عليه و سلم freed women who were enslaved by Jews and forbid killing young girls by parents who would rather have sons than daughters.


Also don't believe people who say that "islam is a killing cult and that prophet Muhammed " صلى الله عليه و سلم" was a big killer".These are lies to keep you unaware of sunnism, the best religion ever and the only religion for God.

VfD Campaign against books critical to Islam

Recently I've been filling out the category Category:Books critical of Islam with articles about a contemporary books that are critical of Islam. One would think that documenting a verifiyable sub genre of books would not cause offense. But sadly this is not the case. I urge all wikipedian's concerned with having an encyclopedic encyclopedia to look at the following articles and their VfD's. Klonimus 23:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WivesMuhammad

Hi Germen! I noticed that you have previously been interested in the Template:WivesMuhammad, so I thought that I might ask you to take a look at it, if you got time for it. I am having a little dispute with Irishpunktom there, and I would appriciated a third opinion there. -- Karl Meier 21:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image source/licensing for Image:Agronomy-hdr.jpg

The image you uploaded, Image:Agronomy-hdr.jpg, has no no source information. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be marked for deletion on 24 October 2005.

This message notification has been automatically sent by NotificationBot managed and run by AllyUnion. Please leave comments regarding bot operations at AllyUnion's talk page. Please direct all comments regarding licensing information at Wikipedia talk:Images for deletion. --NotificationBot 12:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor

Thought you might be interested in the this. IMHO he's equal to BYT Klonimus 05:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor

I have reverted your edits on this RfA because they were made after User:Durin closed it. Feel free to add them to the talk page if you would still like your view to be seen, however as of now that page is meant to be an archive of sentiment at the time of closing and not continuously update. gren グレン 12:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Something fresh on Islamophobia

As usual Daniel completely demolishes the popular conception of the term. The great pseudophobia of our time. Klonimus 15:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice tosee that good ol' boy-us (Bias) in action again Klonimus. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "vandalism"

Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism, and don't accuse of editors of it in your edit summaries unless they've actually vandalised an article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Paris riots

I noticed that you where editing right now and I thought that maybe you could take a look at the 2005 Paris riots article? Irishpunktom believe that a previous attack against a synagogue in the area where the riots take place, is not relevant and not worth mentioning. However, I think otherwise. Maybe you could take a look at it and offer a third opinion? -- Karl Meier 20:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ramallite Zeq 23:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamofascism

Howdy, Germen.

The same folks who didn't like the books critical of Islam are trying to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamofascism (term) which has over 500 Kilogoogles (in various forms). Perhaps you could take a look and give your input. Klonimus 00:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For your information

To avoid a smear campaign by Anonymous editor (talk · contribs) and Irishpunktom (talk · contribs), I have to point out that I'm writing you because you where in the past involved with this user, and AE has in his last RFA many many times campaigned at other users (also to those users who voted oppose), and that he gathered opposition at Babajobu's fist RFA), and that a large part of his wiki-communications are per Email, and there are no policies against this (except the "policy" that it is right if AE does it, but wrong if others do it). I believe in democratic values, so everybody who had any interactions with an user should have the right to be informed and to express his opinion. But I advise you NOT to vote in order to boycott the kind of wiki-politics and wiki-clique behaviour I have seen on the RFA Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor 2.

VWN en WCN

Beste allemaal Al enige tijd is er een Nederlandstalig chapter in oprichting, te vinden op http://nl.wikimedia.org . Dit wordt de Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland (VWN). Je kunt je interesse om lid te worden van deze vereniging hier aangeven.

Deze vereniging gaat eind augustus/begin september een Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland (WCN) houden, volgend op Wikimania in Boston, gedeeltelijk erop inspelend middels een aantal discussiegroepen. Om iets dergelijks te organiseren is imput erg gewenst. Dus als je wilt meehelpen, of als je interesse hebt om bij een dergelijk evenement aanwezig te zijn, geef dat dan aan op nl.wikimedia. Ik hoop daar snel je imput tegemoet te zien! Met vriendelijke groet, effeietsanders 13:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Respiration.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Respiration.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Image Tagging Image:Homozygote.png

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Homozygote.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 16:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Image Tagging Image:LAI Respiration.gif

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:LAI Respiration.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZsinjTalk 03:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Pp-lai.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Pp-lai.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 11:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Please don't use edit summaries like this [3]. It will get you blocked for WP:NPA William M. Connolley 12:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How else to classify reverts which do not occur after vandalism? I added well-sourced information, he even did not try to motivate this behaviour. Suggestions are welcome. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just don't use provocative edit summaries. You have a revert war, you need to discuss it (nicely) in talk. William M. Connolley 12:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will act according to you suggestions next time. My apologies. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit war

I've reviewed both. I find Anon-eds to be more neutral. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 13:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How? --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Image Tagging Image:Planttissueculture.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Planttissueculture.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 13:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afshin Ellian

Hi, I wanted to inform you that I've created the article on Afshin Ellian. Judging from your contributions you might be interested to take a look. Cheers, jacoplane 20:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

You've been given a 24-hour block for using anonymous IP addresses in the 130.89.24.0/24 range as sockpuppets to circumvent the WP:3RR on the Religious conversion article. Please edit more harmoniously when your block expires. — Mar. 28, '06 [20:32] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Islamophobia

Hey. I thought that maybe you could take a look at the islamophobia article? Irishpunktom & friends apparently wants to remove all information re the fact that the concept has been criticized by among others Salman Rushdie froim the intro section. -- Karl Meier 10:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And I'll see what I can do about the Islamophilia article. -- Karl Meier 11:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Islamophilia

The article was deleted under the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, under criteria point G4 ("Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy"). The user who performed the deletion believed this to be a near-duplicate of the article deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamophilia. This does not require the current deletion debate to conclude, as a valid reason for speedy deletion 'trumps' a normal deletion discussion.

That said, the user who performed the speedy deletion should have had the courtesy to close of the current AfD discussion.

I have no interest either way in what happens with the article, I'm just trying to let you know what happened to cause the deletion. -- Saberwyn 12:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your motivation. Note, however, that the original article (which was deleted before) was much longer. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough to me. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic wiki encyclopedia

Hi,

I wondered if you could add to this article as I think it is important for wikipedians to know what wikipedia would be like were it subject to Islamic law.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_wiki_encyclopedia JHJPDJKDKHI! 22:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid Revert Wars

Please try to avoid revert wars on Historical_persecution_by_Muslims and use the article's talk page to sort out your edit differences with User:Irishpunktom. Thanks! Netscott 14:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Additionally please avoid further edit warring with User:Irishpunktom on Islamization and instead utilize Talk:Islamization to work out differences. Netscott 14:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons I request an unblock are as follows. Regarding this block:

  • I have been blocked on the allegation of abusing an open IP number. There is no proof for this statement, which I feel is arbitrary.

Regarding the previous two blocks, regarding "disruptive editing":

  • I have followed a cooperative approach, in which I incorporated other users' edits.
  • We have an editing conflict with two users, user:Irishpunktom and user:Anonymous editor which try to press an islamic POV on several articles.
  • My edits do not qualify as disruptive, therefore those two bans were incorrect.
  • Those two users do not follow a cooperative approach, but revert again and again. So their behaviour is more disruptive than my behaviour, which makes me feel that the previous bans (by the same administrator) were not motivated as well.

--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 09:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock denied. You have been blocked for revert warring before, regardless of the actions of others your actions are unacceptable. i.e. Two wrongs don't make a right. If you have problems wikipedia has various methods for dispute resolution edit warring isn't one of them. --pgk(talk) 10:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that both user:Irishpunktom and user: Anonymous editor have involved in edit warring before (up to 40% of AE's edits [4] and more than 60% of IP's edits [5] are reverts of other users), while disciplinary action is taken against only me, invalidates your point.
I try to improve articles while those two users are deleting well-sourced information and start revert wars. Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi? Do I have to do shahada? --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aw I said before, the allegation of using an open IP and therefore revert warring is unproven. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Islamic POV

Germen, you know according to your own admission you don't hold a very favorable opinion of Islam. Such a POV makes it difficult to trust your edits when you are working on a given article that relates to Islam and muslims. (1) I can understand why User:Irishpunktom and User:Anonymous_editor tend to be quick to quash what you add/modify in such articles... I'm actually a bit inclined to do so myself. (2) Unfortunately, I think you do make valid edits but that these edits can be difficult to see through the POV edits that you make and have been known to make. (3) Obviously we are all entitled to hold our own opinions. When it comes to editing on Wikipedia though our opinions are not to enter into what we contribute, only facts from an NPOV standpoint. Although User:Anonymous_editor and User:Irishpunktom do tend to hold pro Islam POV (some would say Islamist) (4) I'm beginning to get the impression that they aren't completely unreasonable (particularly User:Anonymous_editor). An example would be this section (5) of List of converts to Islam. If one wants to glorify Islam then such a section would need to go away and be edited out which is what User:Anonymous_editor initially did (6), but after a bit of a contentious discussion on his talk page and mine it seems he came to realize that that section was based upon fact and warranted being there. I suspect that if you take the same tack with your edits relative to those two you'll have a better chance to see your edits not be quashed. Hope that helps you better understand the situation. Netscott 10:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that CheckUser finds you in a blocked state now so I'm going to put a 'watch' on your talk page and see if you respond. Netscott 11:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Indeed, as user:Anonymous editor and user:Irishpunktom admit that they are Muslims and therefore have a quite favourable POV about Islam. Why is a favourable POV less objectionable than a non-favourable POV? Because I now know due to my experiences with Wikipedia, I know have to source my additions well, which improves Wikipedia quality.
  • 2. You indicate here that both Anonymous Editor and Irishpunktom systematically revert my edits because of prejudice against me. That's my point. The decision to revert should not be made because of prejudice (WP:POV) but because of solid arguments. As an administrator, Anonymous Editor should be well aware of this. Instead, he continues edit warring, not just me, but also against other users which don't share his pro-islamic POV.
  • 3. As I prove before at the Talk Page, Anonymous Editor fails to provide sufficient evidence for his allegations. He seems not to have trouble in including biased sources. This make your statements problematic.
  • 4. As I said before and you finally acknowledge. Why is their edit warring and pro-islam POV allowed and are even neutral and well-sourced additions from me deleted? Why are their deletions and disruptive reverts not termed 'disruption' while my well-sourced additions are?
  • 5. We see the general pattern here. AE follows the tactics of a bully. At first, he tries to make pro-islam POV edits, prefrably reversions or deletions because they are easy. When his bluff is called by reputable users (such as you, being an administrator, I am an easy prey) and his deletions cannot be defended objectively, he backs off.
  • 6. I tried to follow this tactic i.e. in the Talk Page. It didn't help though, because this tactic presumes an elementary feeling for fair play and willingness to discuss on value of argument by both parties.
Note that in several articles [6] [7] [8] [9], Wikipedia's pro-liberal bias is under attack and threaten Wikipedia's reputation as a valid, NPOV information source. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I hold a secular view when it comes to religious matters but when I see an editor tending to make POV edits of a religious nature (either for or against religion) I'm inclined to want to neutralize such editing. I do agree that one shouldn't prejudge another however I would argue that you haven't been prejudged but have been judged based upon your actions and your own self-admissions. Not being familiar with your histories I'm not aware of whether or not user:Irishpunktom and user:Anonymous editor systematically revert your edits, all that I'm saying is the reverting I've seen them do is a bit understandable in the context of your editing character and style and your own admissions. As far as their pro-Islam views being "allowed", no one's "allowing" anything. Again I'm not familiar enough with your interactions to know what has been occuring and I'm only writing to you on what I've noticed in the last couple of weeks. As far as your contention that Wikipedia is "pro-liberal", I disagree... Wikipedia is designed to be inclusionary of all viewpoints so long as the net total of "point of view" is neutral. That isn't the same as liberal. Netscott 12:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To my regret, the main points are not addressed.
  • Anonymous Editor and Irishpunktom revert my additions and sources without valid reason, which decreases informational quality of Wikipedia.
  • This disruptive behaviour is not addressed, while my attempts to restore vandalised pages are termed "edit warring". It is an example of blaming the victim.
  • As a consequence, Wikipedia articles about Islam-related issues tend to be dominated by those who are Muslim or those who have a Islam-sympathetic POV, excluding Islam-critical viewpoints. And Wikipedia's reputation, as well as Wikipedia informational quality suffers. This does not seem in general or Wikipedia interest. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I wasn't the individual who added the {{unblock}} tag, but I'll just add here quickly that I find it a bit odd that this editor wasn't warned prior to being blocked for 1 week... due to this fact a 1 week block seems a bit excessive. Also I'm guessing that he was blocked based upon CheckUser evidence but such evidence doesn't appear to have been presented. Netscott 12:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the unblock tag, as I've reviewed this case and agree with the block. CheckUser did indeed determine that at least some of the IPs warring at religious conversion were Germen evading his 3RR block, and others were suspicious open proxies. I also note Germen's resumption of edit warring on the same article after the block expired. Dmcdevit·t 04:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are not taking appropriate measures against Anonymous Editor and Irishpunktom because of edit warring but just single me out. This while I have proven at least five violations of Wikiquette. As you saw, AE reverted my edits so he is edit warring too. Just singling me out for edit warring cannot be jusstified. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

As the reasons given for this block are subjective and remain unproven, I request an unblock.

Here's the reasons as per the list:

  1. 01:01, April 9, 2006 Freakofnurture blocked "Germen (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (use of open proxies to violate WP:3RR on religious conversion)
  2. 17:05, April 4, 2006 Freakofnurture blocked "Germen (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (continued disruptive edit warring on Religious conversion, second such block)
  3. 12:26, March 28, 2006 Freakofnurture blocked "Germen (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (edit warring on Religious conversion, editing anonymously to circumvent 3RR) -- Tawker 08:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The logical questions are of course:
  • who of the alleged participants in edit warring is disruptive? The facts: I added sections which were reverted by user:Anonymous_editor and user:Irishpunktom, both users known for their zeal regarding Islamic matters, time after time. Deleting well-sourced information is disruptive behaviour, bordering vandalism, while restoring vandalised content is, obviously, not.
  • Am I the only user which is to blame for the alleged edit warring? Evidence shows that there were multiple users which participated in the edits.
  • Does the fact that all three bans were implemented by the same administrator, user:Freakofnurture, not raise some elbrows?
The fact that these important questions were never asked by you and several other Wikipedia operatives does not support the Wikipedia claim of WP:NPOV and fact-based resolution of conflicts claims and that Wikipedia bias appears to be a persistent problem. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked for sockpuppetry

For using a sockpuppet to evade your block (as seen at WP:RFCU#User:Germen_and_User:Xorox), which was itself an extension of an earlier edit warring block for evasion using IPs and proxies, I've blocked you for a month. You must stop or you will find yourself blocked indefinitely. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have proof? If so, can you post it here? --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 08:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the CheckUser report I linked to. That is proof linking you with your sockpuppet account, which edited from the same IP address. Dmcdevit·t 15:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia admins don't play by the rules, why should I? --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 17:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've expressed to you before Germen, (1) it's a pity that you make such heavily anti-Islam POV edits for from what I have seen you are able to make true NPOV and quality edits. (2) The attitude you've expressed here on your last line would make me (as an admin) inclined to want to indefinitely block you. (3) If you have proof of admin impropriety then you should by all means be reporting it. Two wrongs don't make a right. Myself I have yet to see evidence of such impropriety. Netscott 18:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scott,(1) It is a pity that you term well-sourced and neutral-worded edits as POV, while you term Anonymous Editor's OR and unsourced weasel-wording edits as NPOV. It is a pity as well that you support the persistent deletion of information and sources by AE and his Islamic brother Irishpunktom, while calling my restoration of this vandalism disrupting. I have already proven that this character is a staunch follower of the taqiyya doctrine, see talk page of Religious conversion.
(2) I have already proven that my first and second block were unfair: AE's revert vandalism went unchecked. See above. I will take appropriate measures in order to correct this problem.
(3) I will post the proofs at Wikipedia Review, because Wikipedia cannot be trusted. Germen --81.58.29.93 18:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Barnstar Award

Please offer your opinion, vote, or whatever about your choice for the image to be used with the Islamic Barnstar Award at the Barnstar proposals page. Although there is consensus for the concept of an Islamic Barnstar Award, some editors would like to change the image for the award. I was just thinking you should be aware of this discussion because you have contributed to Islamic-related articles, received the Islamic Barnstar Award, or have contributed to the Islam-related Wikiprojects, etc.--JuanMuslim 1m 03:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Saudi Arabia

It was a mistake. I was reverting another edit. -- Szvest 14:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attack site

FYI, the ArbCom recently banned someone for, as I recall, a year for posting links to personal attacks on that site. If you do it again, I will report you. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming the site wikipediareview.com at random people's web pages. Wikipedia is not a soap box and this behaviour is not acceptable.-Localzuk (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for WP:3RR violation on Islamophobia, admitted use of anonymous IPs to bypass prior block history, personal attacks against SlimVirgin, all this after numerous prior 3RR blocks for a period of 3 months. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. alphaChimp laudare 17:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but no thanks

Thanks for the link, but I think it is best to keep personal details about other editors personal and smear campaigns to a minimum, no matter how much you disagree with an editor and their behavior. I've had problems with extra-wikipedia insults in the past (who knows how somebody got my personal info) and it was not fun and wouldn't wish it on anyone. Remember that after all, this is just an encyclopedia we're writing, and WP-related arguments should be kept in this perspective. Anyway, good luck resolving some of these issues. Best. Nrets 18:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F1 Hybrids

I am thinking about creating a "Filial Generation" article to separate it from "F1 Hybrid" which seems mostly Botany based. Let me know what you think here or in Talk:F1 Hybrid. --Jaydjenkins 01:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, per Wikipedia:Harassment#Types_of_harassment/posting of personal information, links to Wikipedia Review are disallowed. It is an attack site that cannot be linked to, advertised, or promoted, supported by previous ArbCom decisions. I've removed this link and promotion of a hostile site that attacks and attempts to out the IRL identities of Wikipedians from your user page, per this:

"Posting information on, or implying how to find, or simply posting the address of a website which publishes such information is also harassment, regardless of whether the posted link is live or just a bare URL. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor.""

Thanks for your understanding. - Denny (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Article deletion request

I just thought you would like to know that an article Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad which you had voted on in a previous deletion request has been renominated for deletion: 2nd nomination. Rune X2 20:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nl small.gif missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Nl small.gif is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Germen/Religious persecution by Muslims

User:Germen/Religious persecution by Muslims, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Germen/Religious persecution by Muslims (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Germen/Religious persecution by Muslims during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Netherlands flag small.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Netherlands flag small.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing file in your sig

Please fix your sig. The link to the file in your signature, File:Nl small.gif, is dead. The next best image is File:Flag of the Netherlands.svg. I have made the substitution to your sig at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihad al-nikah (2nd nomination). As a side note, I'm not sure why you placed a {{pov}} tag on the page itself. If you intended to link to WP:POV, please fix this.--Auric talk 20:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Germen/Prejudices about islam

A tag has been placed on User:Germen/Prejudices about islam requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Religious prejudice(Islam) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Religious prejudice(Islam). Since you had some involvement with the Religious prejudice(Islam) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]