User talk:Azate/Archive 2006

What?

Seriously? Dude, just get past the World Cup and then come back, please! Serioulsy man you are an awesome editor who does great good for the project. Netscott 23:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go

I'm sorry to see you are leaving. You did a very nice job on the article about the Muhammad cartoons controversy. Please reconsider your decision. Valentinian ^(talk) 18:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Good riddance!

For deleting the link to the webcomics of Abdallah Aziz, it's good that you are gone! Politicallyincorrectliberal 19:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That was a very funny definition of "Liberal". And I think you've just violated WP:NPA and WP:Etiquette Valentinian ^(talk) 19:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with you there Valentinian, I was thinking about dropping a little note on WP:PAIN. Netscott 20:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Good sign?

Is that a good sign you adding "page" to your user page? :-) (→Netscott) 01:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, political/religious/controversial topics tend to be rather stressful to edit on... so if you're trying to avoid that your plan sounds wise. It's very cool to see you back. Your user pages are on my "watch list" which is how I noticed that you edited your user page. (→Netscott) 01:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Islam link

I've been rather curious to have a look at the insides of that resource... I would council folks to refrain from spreading the word about such a thing on Wikipedia though... you can be sure such "backdoors" are generally frowned upon. ;-) Glad to see you're back online here (→Netscott) 02:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Azate, just to let you know that I responded to your e-mail. Cheers. (→Netscott) 09:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You've got mail again. ;-) (→Netscott) 16:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well , duh

Not sure who e-mailed you... but anyone who knows you should have known instantly that was not you. I could practically tell that myself with my eyes closed. :-) (→Netscott) 04:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

August 16

I really think it's August 22. I'll be back with some sources. --Elliskev 23:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It's also what the "times" article says. My fault. Azate 23:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Phew! :D --Elliskev 00:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ridicule etc.

You wrote: "I agree with your opinion the reactions from the Muslim world on this are quite ridiculous. However, the problem is we don't have too many people saying this is ridiculous loud enough in the real world to get a place in the article. As far as I can see, it's some in the Muslim world protesting, the Vatican trying to defend the Pope's statements, and the rest of the world, save Angela Merkel, staying out of this. -- tariqabjotu 20:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)"

So, ahem, I searched news.google.com in the vain hope that somebody of weight would have called this affair ridiculous. Somebody did: [1] Azate 21:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes; satire is the greatest source of introspection. -- tariqabjotu 21:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Gulen Page

Please note that you have reverted the page 3 times. Refrain yourself from violating the rules and posting incorrect statements. Thanks, Bismihi 18:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Heja Turkiet!

Congratulations!

Orhan Pamuk is a worthy Nobel price-winner of literature (my wife says so!)

Your reverts to my edits in Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

I changed Zionist to "Zionist", because the allegation of a "Zionist conspiracy" does not have any connection to Zionism, which is a political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in Israel. The correct terminology in this case is "Zionism" (with quotes). Actually the whole "Zionist agenda" section is insignificant and borders on POV, and maybe should be just deleted altogether. --Gabi S. 09:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this before. The section is well sourced and relevant. If you feel that "Zionism" and Zionism are two different things, add the quotation marks in your mind. This could equally apply to "the West" or "Islam" or "Denmark", all of which mean different things to different people after all. Azate 10:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is well-sourced, but not very relevant. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --Gabi S. 13:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Blaming Zionism is pretty widespread, as you well know. So it's relevant to mention it. If you want changes, take them to the article talk page instead of argueing with me. Make sure you are familiar wih past discussion of exacty this point. Consult the talk page archives on why this was the solution arrived at. Azate 15:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Blaming Zionism is pretty widespread on every issue in the Arab world. I have even seen allegations that "Zionists" are responsible for traffic accidents in Saudi Arabia. But regarding these ridiculous caricatures, the allegations are quite rare. I looked at the references and wasn't impressed. A University Lecturer from Qatar, a Palestinian diplomat and an Irani ayatollah do not make it widespread. Actually this negligible allegation was missing from the article until 2-May-2006, when you added it, and have since defended. According to the NPOV policy it's an insignificant issue that can be safely deleted, and I will do so unless you provide reliable sources that it is a widespread opinion, and not a POV mentioned by a minority of extremists. --Gabi S. 18:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ali Khamenei is not just "an Iranian aytollah", "the palestinian diplomat" is the ambassasor in Washington. Top jobs, both.. Your permanent shifting of focus isn't exactly helpful: First Zionism isn't "Zionism", then the allegation is "insignificant and POV" (well, of course it's POV, the section is an overview of the different POVs out there about alleged agendas), and now it's a "rare" allegation (but you say yourself that it's "widespread" in your very first sentence). Why this ado about nothing? Suppose you took out the zionism-blaming subsection inthis and every similar article: People unfamiliar with the wider subject would never know that "Blaming Zionism is pretty widespread on every issue in the Arab world", and would have been badly informed. People who are familiar with the arab-zionism subject as a whole, but not with the cartoon-affair in particular, would scratch their heads and wonder why the Zionist's WEREN'T blamed, which they knew well was to be expected. Azate 18:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I understand your point now. Maybe we should also add it to the Traffic accidents in Saudi Arabia article :-) . --Gabi S. 19:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Useless?

Hi. Please see discussion on Etiquette in Canada and the United States. Thanks. ◄HouseOfScandal►17:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ahmad Abu Laban Foxtv.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ahmad Abu Laban Foxtv.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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 Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)