User talk:Tickle me/archive2

Yeah, if I actually spoke Russian I could know what the page is saying. And see if it should be deleted.

However, now you looked around the site too. And the CIA will be after both of us! :( BirdValiant 03:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typos

Please be careful when correcting typos. NEVER correct typos in image names, as you did in Belarusian presidential election, 2006, and in other links without checking the links first. mikka (t) 00:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, I know what a path name is. I mistook it for an img caption, though, having been exhausted, and inattentive for a moment. Before swearing, you might assume good faith. --tickle me 00:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't swearing. I simply wasn't aware what you know and what not. No offense intended, just being on the safe side you'll never do this again. As a colleague, and as a seasoned wikiholic, I'd friengy suggest to take reguar wikibreaks, using, eg. chess watch or something. If I corrected a "typo" and then deleted an image because of this correction, I'd swallowed a finger waving without fuss. mikka (t) 01:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Results and Thanks

Tickle me/archive2, thank you for your constructive opposition in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. In the meantime, I will do my best to address your concerns in the hope that when the opportunity for adminship arises once again, you will reconsider your position. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path. --- joturner 05:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khomeini

Request by SouthernComfort answered and moved to Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini, as other participants of that talk page might want to comment. --tickle me 01:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion (Excellent to my mind :D )

Hi Tickle me,

This is regarding the dhimmi, jizya and rules of war in islam articles. I think RfC is not a good idea since we are not sure if both articles are free from any problems. I have a suggestion: All editors involved in this mediation nominate a few editors(not among themselves). They are better to be administrator or at least experienced editors(e.g. Zora ) and concede their editing right to their nominated editors. These people will form the editor committee. All the editors have to promise not to edit the articles directly anymore, but just try to convince the editor committee if they want to make any change to the article(The articles can be blocked from editing). The final decisions are however made by the editor committee(maybe voting). I hope that concensus could be achieved easier there. How is my idea? Please post your opinion at [1] Thanks --Aminz 07:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tickle me, I have made an slot for you on the mediation page.[2] Please post your opinion there. thx--Aminz 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for warning me

When I have proposed to you an article about Rudolf I was planning to expend it, which I have not done so, I have pratically forgotten its existance. There seem to be an increase in the number of people involved in the domain getting involved and getting their POV pushed in here, we should be aware of that. Fad (ix) 03:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are very annoying and ignorant

Moved to Talk:Basij. --tickle me 08:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Basiji use of roman salute

Hi Tickle. My source is the same as yours, i.e. this link. Same image is here. The photo purportedly depicts a group of Iranian basijis, but after a deeper look I started doubting which of the groups it corresponds to (assuming of course it's authentic and not some sort of forgery, as suggested by another user).

I'm afraid the Arabic (or Persian) phrase on the headbands is not clear, for me at least (I can read Arabic and also a bit of Persian, which is written with basically the same alphabet). I can however tell you that the words "Basij" or "Hezbollah" are not within the visible fragments of the headbands.

I see two different "models" of headbands (green with yellow letters and blue with white letters). Last letters in the green/yellow headbands might be ون /..oon, which matches Lebanese Hezbollah's motto (transliterated "fa inna hezbollah hoom al ghaaliboon", a Koran verse meaning "those from the Party of God are the victorious ones"), and if you look at the part almost on the right ear, you see a logo which resembles Lebanese Hezbollah's (i.e. the name "Hezbollah" with a right arm holding a rifle, green letters on a yellow ground. Find it here). Look especially at the rifle's position and compare both the pics. I'm now inclined to Hezbollah's option.

I hope this helps a bit. We may consult some Persian and Arabic native speakers, there are some of them in this Wiki. --Filius Rosadis 20:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a seemingly uncropped and larger version of the photo, does that help? BTW: It's claimed on en:Salute that Palestinian militant groups and the Basij greet like that.

A google search indicates a relation to the term "Hezbollah", however, I think that it's most likely a relation to the Iranian terms/organisations Ansar-e-Hezbollah and Hezbollah (Iran). An Arab speaker I asked about the small photo told me that the headbands where not in Arabic for sure - though he couldn't decipher them.

This version is labeled "Hizbollah 'Swearing in ceremony' ... Date: Iran, December 2003". So I'm pretty sure about the Iran connection. After all, the picture was uploaded by SouthernComfort, who is not known as being anti-Iran at all. --tickle me 21:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to see my conversation with Zereshk in my user page. The image is not necessarily anti Iranian, but sources like eretzyisroel.org certainly are. I wouldn't include it in the analysis. --Filius Rosadis 20:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the photos' authoritative source, though only in cropped versions: gettyimages.com 1 and gettyimages.com 2, caption: "BEIRUT, LEBANON: Hezbollah fighters salute during a graduation ceremony on 'Martyrs Day' in Beirut 11 November 2001."

So it's the Hezbollah of Lebanon - I'll add it here. BTW: an Islamic scholar I trust suggests the Mullah sitting second from the left -the one with the white shirt- is Muqtada Sadr - probably visiting his Shia allies in Lebanon. --tickle me 03:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol that's definitely NOT sadr. not even close. p.s. sadr doesn't have allies in lebanon. badr brigade does. Umar99 05:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman salute

I believe I copied the Basijis info from Roman salute. I do not stand by those additions, except for those regarding Taiwan. If it is well disputed, then feel free to remove it. --Jiang 23:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mosque FAC Comment

I have responded to your comments on the Mosque FAC; I hope I have addressed your concerns sufficiently. Feel free to comment more on issues with the article on the FAC page. joturner 03:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comment on the Mosque FAC regarding the addition of various comments found in a newspaper article. In response to that I wanted to pose a fairly serious question onto you. If Saudi's influence of Mosques has lead to gender segregation in Mosques (as the article claims), then why can men and women stand next to each other in the Great Mosque of Mecca (Saudi)? Furthermore, Islamic scripture has always stated the order of placement of of genders in a Mosque should be men at the front, children and then women. The reason given is that during Muslim prayer there is a position of bending over called Ruk'u (illustrated [3]) which, even in Western culture, attracts unwarrented attention from men. (Another reason given here.) Is there some reason why these facts were not mentioned? I look forward to understanding your position. Thanks. User247 18:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basiji use of roman salute

on my talk page, you wrote:

Hi, you added this to Roman_salute. There's a picture showing Basijis giving this kind of salute, however, some editors dispute its authenticity. Do you have info on the subject? --tickle me 17:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'fraid I don't. I got the information from that photograph, so if it's been called into question. . . I've taken the text out of the article for now, and I'll keep you posted if I turn up anything. —Charles P._(Mirv) 12:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just another RFA thank you note

Dear TickleMe, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salvation article

Hello Tickle me!

Just thought you might interested to have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation#Judaism

This was the last change to the Judaism part of the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salvation&diff=51265398&oldid=51264179

Since it is a christian article, usually Jew editors do not look at it.

Thanks, --Aminz 09:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dhimmi

There are plenty of capable editors following Dhimmi, and I appreciate their, and your, contributions. But in spite of the good work you do, I find the level of animosity there unpleasant. I have no special expertise to bring to the page, and I think my time can be better spent elsewhere. Best wishes, Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tickle. Al-Mawardi's ref was not deleted. The article still says that it is punishable by death, it is just merged with another sentence. Otherwise there are three sentences that say that it was punishable by death. Now, the reader knows it was punishable by death, and the death is by stoning. I'm really not trying to take anything out.--Dr.Worm 06:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Editor / User Page Review

Hey Tickle me/archive2 –

You opposed my last RfA in March on rationale I believe may have been related to my user page. In the time since then, I have changed my page to be more universalist (which still conforms with my personal beliefs) and removed the majority of information regarding my conversion to Islam in favor of a section on my philosophy (as well as yours if you desire). Now, I'm looking for your feedback on what you think of the redesign of the page and whether it is sufficient in quelling the March controversy over the page as well as solving the issue about possible inability to maintain a neutral point of view, especially in religion-related articles. For what it's worth, the reason I kept a condensed version of the timeline was because there were, and still are, many people who find it interesting instead of a form of proselytization. Many people have also given me positive feedback on my talk page regarding the look of the page. I personally believe that it is okay to insert individuality onto user pages, especially if it still promotes a sense of community. That is what I was going for with this current version of my user page.

Please make comments regarding the user page on my editor review page. Thanks in advance. joturner 14:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transatlantic Intelligencer

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Transatlantic Intelligencer, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.trans-int.com/About-transint-7.html. As a copyright violation, Transatlantic Intelligencer appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Transatlantic Intelligencer has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Transatlantic Intelligencer. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Transatlantic Intelligencer, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia.

Mr Stephen 13:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely unwarranted and out of proportion. The site encourages fair use of extracts with appropriate, linked acknowledgment, which had been done by linking to its homepage. Only the reprint of full posts warrants permission in writing. Even disregarding that circumstance, my version was no direct copy at all. Most, though not all phrases were rewritten. "If the source is a credible one": a website's self description is suitable to describe the site intentions. "citing the source": this had been done. I rewrote the article including *every single phrase* now, leaving three quotes marked as such. I expect you to react sensibly next time. --tickle me 18:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rearranging the order of sentences within an article, without changing the sentences, does not amount to a re-write, and remains a copyvio. The copyvio'ing article is gone now, but my memory is that a tiny proportion was your work. The current version of the article is a better effort. I hope I "react sensibly" all the time, but I am happy to be put back on the correct track. Regards, Mr Stephen 19:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars for Peace in the Middle East...

...is a copyvio. Rephrasing does not cure it. I put it up for CSD. Courtesy notice. If this thing really is notable, you should rewrite it from scratch. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, rewrite it, but let it get deleted, and then post a clean non-copyvio version afterwards. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I wouldn't like to have a deleted page on my record, if avoidable. --tickle me 18:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

complete rewrite, copyvio should be addressed. --tickle me 19:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Jizya article

Please do not change the heading from Criticism to Humiliating nature of Jizya. I can accept other changes as long as you keep that heading remain same. Thank you. --- Faisal 14:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mosque

About [4], it states "In Turkey any mosque is open to visitors, non-Muslims can visit them as well." BhaiSaab ^talk 05:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would [5] be appropriate? He's an author of a travel book for Turkey. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Banu Nadir, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Speaking of which... be careful when you put these articles up. This article was started 23:22, 13 February 2006 which is not within the last five days. It shouldn't have been placed into the "did you know template". gren グレン 19:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... I hadn't noticed all of this controversy about the article... well, in any case... I think my point still stands? Good thing I decided not to remove it... that would have been too political ~_~ gren グレン 19:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Brian showed me that the guidelines had been changed since [June 1 when I saw them last. So, nevermind :) gren グレン 21:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banu Nadir mass deletions

Why did you delete half the sections in Banu Nadir while claiming in the edit summary to be reverting?

Why did you claim that I "refused" to provide sources requested, after less than an hour of their being demanded?

I note you nominated Banu Nadir for DYK when it was in a terrible, one-sided state, and the fact that you have joined in reversions re-including the biased language which I removed tells me that you are more interested in spreading the bias than creating a neutral encyclopedia. Publicola 20:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did it again! You deleted half the article with the edit summary "rv"! If you are trying to lure me into some kind of a 3RR situation, you might check to see that reverting simple vandalism (such as your deletes of those many sections) doesn't apply. Publicola 21:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Banu Nadir. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. CynicalMe 21:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"You deleted half the article with the edit summary 'rv' ": False, the summary was "rv", pointing to my corresponding talk page comment.

"Vandalism": True, unfortunately. My first revert was reasoned with: "rv to Grenavitar, Publicola refrains from sourcing his demands on talk page. The "See also" links are basal for the article's topic". However, instead of restoring Grenavitar's version *and* the "See also" links I wanted to protect, I deleted most of the article. This was not intentional: I clicked on Gren's version, hit "edit" and saved without editing. My next revert was back again to that crippled version, as I didn't realise the mishap, which I attribute to a technical glitch. I'm might be known for many things wikiwise, but not for vandalism, so I guess my claim of not doing it intentionally will be trusted at least by tutti quanti. I stand to my intention of reverting Publicola, which I reasoned. The blunder puts me in a bad position, however, I'll refrain from editing the article for a day. --tickle me 22:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grenavitar's version to which you were apparently trying to revert has all the sections. In any case, I would argue that Jihad and Rules of war in Islam (which deals only with jihad) are specifically not pertinent to Banu Nadir, because the religious concerns were secondary at best in the conflict between that tribe and the Muslims. --71.132.153.146 00:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I attribute the mishap either to me or WP, not Grenavitar. Something similar happened with Dhimmi too, though I could correct that after the incident with Banu Nadir alerted me. --tickle me 00:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new user at wikipedia. So I don't know what to do in this situation. The situation at our article is that whatever changes we make, whatever things we discuss, all changes are reverted back again and again. The last change which I think would correspond to the version, which I think was balanced was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Nadir&oldid=59433750 . Some people are not accepting any other source other than Jewish writings, and not even Islamic sources like Ahadith. They are not even ready to put Muslims opinion (not as part of the fact, just as an opinion of other party) on the page. As I believe that the novice reader has the right to hear story from both sides. Your efforts will be appreciated, if you can look into this matter. Thank you! SS 14:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP accepts only what scholarly or notable secondary sources say. Quoting a primary source such as a hadith or surah and inferring on it, even it the inferences seem clearcut and obvious, is considered OR, as we just compile information by authoritative secondary sources. That's how any encyclopedia is run. What is considered scholarly or notable, i.e. authoritative, depends on the topic: with e.g. historic subjects it's only historians' writings, preferably contemporaries, as the findings of scholars of earlier ages are mostly superseded by now.

It happens that there are few contemporary Muslim historians, much less of international standing - it was upside down many centuries ago. However, we're supposed to judge scholars by their academic merits only, not by their religion anyway. Should you find western science biased intrinsically, you'll have to rely on Muslim scientists, which nowadays are mostly covering either technology or Islamic theology - both of which don't apply here. Most other topics of western science, particularly social sciences, are largely held in contempt in the Islamic world of today - I can't help it. Please refer to WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. Editors need to know these principles well: we all had to go through this. Else, you won't succeed covering contended issues.

On a side note: the signature SS (please follow that link) is somewhat equivocal, e.g. "Saadsaleem" or "S" will be fine with most. --tickle me 15:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Boy, that was strange. For half a minute, it seemed to me that -th was the second person conjugation and -st the third! And I'm supposed to know these things! Anyhow, it's nice to see you on Aisha talking about sources. This article underwent Zorafication. This is where a fair-minded and competent editor brokers a "he said, she said" compromise between two factions, neither of which have good sources, resulting in original research.Timothy Usher 07:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly, Zora's zesty Zorafication zeal (ZzZz™) is a recent development: she kneweth better before and spake many a word of wisdom. --tickle me 07:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banu Nadir mediation questions

Please help Banu Nadir mediation succeed by providing your opinions in answer to your column on the Talk:Banu Nadir#Dispute location identification answer grid (referring to the questions in the preceeding section.) With luck, this will help narrow the focus of the dispute. Publicola 08:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]