User talk:FayssalF/Archive O

Re: Ready?

Sorry, Fayssal. I have been very busy at work on the buildup to xmas. I answered all the questions this morning. I will be in Spain from Saturday but I will be on the internet anyway. I have not extended myself too much on the answers but I am happy to answer anyone else's questions, of course. Thanks a lot for nominating me. Fingers crossed :-) Asterion^talk 10:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We'll do one thing. Following the instructions here you'll be the one listing it at the RfA main page when you are ready. HOwever, we can also start from scratch when you are back after deleting this prior one. Just tell me which option is suitable for you. Cheers -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's OK. I'll probably have more time during these days than when I'm back anyway. I just listed it. Gracias por todo Fayssal. --Asterion^talk 13:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

De nada hombre! Buena suerte. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Gracias por nominarme, Fayssal. Estoy muy contento de como va el proceso. About to board my plane home. I will check wiki again tomorrow. All the best, Asterion^talk 17:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for the support! MONGO 10:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated MONGO! Enjoy! -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Book covers

Hi, is there a WP policy which restricts a book cover image to only its own article? thanks. --Matt57 19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Matt57. Please read the book and magazine templates.

• Magazine cover: This image is of a magazine cover, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the magazine or the individual contributors who worked on the cover depicted. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of magazine covers: to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question,
• Book cover: This image is of a book cover, and the copyright for it is most likely owned either by the artist who created the cover or the publisher of the book. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers: to illustrate an article discussing the book in question. Cheers -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't know that either. Sounds like we definitely shouldn't use these book covers in the Criticism articles then. - Merzbow 21:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Template:Book_cover says "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question". It doesnt have to be the article exclusively devoted to the book. If ANY article is discussing this book, then the picture can be displayed. Also, I'm not seeing any explicit policy that says that the image cannot be used on its own as I had put in some of the articles. Some time I may look for clarification for this thing from other members. If you want to remove the images for now, you may.--Matt57 21:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Matt and Merzbow. I am not the only one who knows about the application of such terms. You can have a look at these as well; replaced non-free with free image and Using free image instead. Cheers -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"sockpuppet caravan"?

Shouldn't the collective noun fit the group characteristics, e.g. "sockpuppet drawer"? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:20, 20 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Lol! Well, that's right but the caravan also fits as the user in question has been camping in both Ireland, Wales and England! He's been changing the driver's license everytime he changes the place. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Some people collect postcards and tourism brochures as souvenirs of their travels; this person collects driver's licenses. <shrug> De gusty tourist bus non disputandum est. You might possibly also enjoy the latter half of this Usenet post from ages past, another view of sockpuppets. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 15:59, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).

SMH! That's what i call a good coincidence. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:DAde sockpuppet = Abc3

Hey Szvest, could you block Abc3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Peruse this user's contibutions and you'll find that it is just a sock of User:DAde. Note the Qu'ran quotes and interest in Mormon topics. Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indef and noted. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sprotect Michael Richards

Thanks Szvest for the block of User:DAde's sockpuppet above. Got another request. Could you sprotect Michael Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? There's an anonymous IP-hopping user that has been violating 3RR across several editors and tagging his edits as "rvv" while reverting to a lower quality / less sourced/cited POV pushing version of the article. I've requested semi protection but the response to my request appears to be a bit slow. Thanks. (→Netscott) 16:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Szvest, Thanks but the article really only needs sprotecting as the only warring user has been the IP-hopping anon user. (→Netscott) 16:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I had fully protected it as it seemed more an edit warring than IP vandalism. But, well IP-hopping is quite enough a reason to warrant a semi instead of a fully protection. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is understandable for an editor like yourself who's not been following the article. If you can spare a moment just review the edits for the last day or so and you'll see that there's been only one editor that's been consistently going against consensus and that's the IP hopping anon. I encourage you to invite a 3rd party view if necessary. (→Netscott) 16:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah ok, I see you've already sprotected... thanks again Szvest. (→Netscott) 16:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure mate. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

YouTube RfC

I've filed an RfC over the YouTube link issue. Argyriou (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've told A. that RFCs should be filed at WP:RFC, and the category he wants is at the bottom, "Wikipedia policies, guidelines and proposals". If this is wrong, please advise us both. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 18:29, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Actually, it depends on the extent of the dispute. I see that Argyriou has already posted it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies which is the proper action. Personally, i'd recommend we put a notice in parallel at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to involve more users while keeping discussions at Wikipedia talk:External links. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Lo prometido es deuda

Garcilaso. Es ke no tenemos un articulo sobre el Patio de los Leones (Court of the Lions). Tienes algunas informaciones? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Gracias Garcilaso. Entoces hasta mañana. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pues eso: Court of the Lions. A ver qué te parece.--Garcilaso 13:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Vaya articulo!! Habia pensado que seria un miniesbozo pero me encuentro con un articulo tan bello. Muy buen trabajo Garcilaso. Gracias. Para no olvidar, User:Asterion està nominado para ser un bibliotecario aqui. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Me alegra que te guste. Todavía le falta atar algunos cabos, como traducir al inglés el poema de Ibn Zamrak, que me da un poco de pereza, porque la traducción al español de Emilio García Gómez es tan bella que es difícil estar a la altura con mi inglés chapurreao. A Asterion ya le he votado, faltaría más. Pues nada, ¡a mandar!--Garcilaso 16:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hola Fayssal, sólo quería comentarte respecto a las fechas de la construcción del Palacio de los Leones, creo que son erróneas. Ya me di cuenta cuando escribía el artículo de que le faltaba una cronología, y agradezco el esfuerzo para mejorarlo, así como la traducción al árabe. Yo no tengo el dato concreto de la construcción del patio, ni de su finalización, pero 1230 - 1354 a.D. no corresponden con el reinado de Muhammad V (1354–1359 y 1362–1391). Como expongo en el artículo, la construcción tuvo lugar durante su segundo mandato, con lo que la fecha de inicio del patio debe de estar entre 1362 y 1391. La página web de la que has tomado el dato debe de ir "de oídas", como mucho de lo que se ha escrito sobre la Alhambra, que tiene una atmósfera tan especial, tan "mágica", que ha sido objeto de muchas bienintencionadas invenciones para "decorar" la historia. Lo mismo pasa con, por ejemplo, el Camino de Santiago. Ambos son temas que me interesan mucho y que no sé cómo empezar a "atacar" en Wikipedia sin crear polémica con tantos editores, pero muchos de los contenidos de dichos artículos son de de escasa fiabilidad. Así que mientras que me había apartado del tema por pereza, por no buscar y reseñar una a una las referencias (muchas veces no tan accesibles) que rebatan todos y cada uno de los "pufos", éstos siguen en los artículos. Igual me es más cómodo escribir otros artículos desde cero, del estilo de Court of the Myrtles, Palace of Comares, Mechouar of the Alhambra, Gardens of the Partal, Generalife...Gracias por animarme a meterme en esa vía que estaba postponiendo indefinidamente. Doy por hecho que cuento con tu inestimable ayuda.--Garcilaso 12:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hola Garcilaso. Tienes razón. He removido ese dato. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Link spam

Thanks for fixing Arabic language, there were a few links to that domain that I removed - triggered by additons from a now blocked IP address Special:Contributions/24.165.95.36. Perhaps I should restore some of them. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 16:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You are doing a great work Armadillo. I'll have a look at those and i'll be following that vandal. Cheers -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar! Heimstern Läufer 20:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which did not succeed and was closed early at 2/10/9. I am not discouraged, however, and will use the experience to improve my skills until a later date when I may succeed. Yuser31415 20:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you'll do it next time soon. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Universal Image Format

The same revert war has started again on Universal Image Format (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) thanks to Uifan (talk · contribs · logs) again (cf. this discussion). — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 01:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just left him a final warning here. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanx. Doesn't matter, they have since done it, yet again, with the "vandalism removed! - revert to last useful version by Grim Revenan" BS. What's the next step? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Filed 3RR again if you want to comment there. Their ONLY contrib is this nonsense, maybe it will be a banned account. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Agathoclea's RfA

Hello, and thank you for the support on my recent RfA. The final tally was 63/3/2, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I hope I can live up to your trust, and certainly welcome any and all feedback. All the best, and thanks again! — Agathoclea 13:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

User page deletion

Hello Szvest, re-reading G4 apparently the spiting is permitted (per the userpage clause) however I'm thinking that G4 should be updated to disallow the usage of one's primary user page for recreation of deleted content. This reminds me of User:List of marijuana slang terms which was created to display this deleted content. (→Netscott) 14:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right. I missed the unless part of the policy. I agree w/ you about updating the policy. Do you have any particular way on how to process? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd guess the best place to start would be Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. I'd be surprised if there'd be much resistance to such a change. (→Netscott) 14:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll be supporting that. Just inform me when you are ready. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here goes. :-) (→Netscott) 14:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Move request

Hey Svest, could you please help move Indore, India to Indore? Check out the discussion on the talk page. Thanks a ton, and what's up? deeptrivia (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi DT. Long long time again :) Move is done. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion on this move request would be appreciated...

...As a native Arabic speaker and a long-standing membr of wikipedia: Talk:Shi'a_Islam#Poll_for_clarification. Thanks, Asterion^talk 09:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Asterion. Done. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Asterion^talk 10:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

FayssalF/Archive O

---

Thanks for your support on my successful Request for Adminship (final result 78 Support /0 Oppose / 1 Neutral) I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months. I am humbled by your kind support and would certainly welcome any feedback on my actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, many thanks and happy new year! All the best, Asterion^talk 13:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks so much for nominating me, Fayssal. Best wishes, Asterion^talk 16:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest explanation about the origin of the “Arab numerals”

[ http://www.alargam.com/numbers/sir/1.htm] -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by calcul (talk • contribs) .

Thanks. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Existence of dispute in Antisemitism article

Hi FayssalF,

Hope everything is going well and Happy New Year!!

Some editors are disputing "the very existence of a dispute" on the Antisemitism article. Would you please have at the evidence provided here [1] and see if that testifies existence of at least some dispute over the neutrality of the article. Please sign your name if the evidences prove the existance of some sort of dispute over the neutrality. Thanks. --Aminz 12:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Left my opinion. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 21:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Allah

I have unprotected an article you protected, Allah, since it's been five weeks. Just a friendly heads-up, happy editing to you :) Teke ^(talk) 20:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Teke. I've just done some un-protections lately and forgot about others in need. Happy editing and happy new year. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 20:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Arabic language external link

Hello Fayssal,

I a French man, living in Toulouse, FRANCE. I have a passion for Arabic language, which I am learning. And to help me and help others in order to learn vocabulary, I have created a web site. I tried to make a link towards this site, but it was removed. And I don't understand why. So I made changes, but now I can't edit external link. I don't want to make spamming or advertisement, just to share my work :

http://lang.arabe.free.fr/index_uk.php

Thanks a lot and happy new year, François

Salut François. J'ai jeté 1 coup d'oeil sur le site et j'ai aucune objection sur son addition. Je crois que c'était un malentendu. Dernièrement, l'article Arabic language connaissait une massive introduction des liens externes. Parmi ceux, il existe des liens à caractère commercial. Il faut savoir que nous avons à wikipedia une politique traitant les liens externes (WP:EL). De toute façon, je vais introduire le lien cité ci-dessus car il obéit aux critères dictés par ladite politique. Joyeux Noël. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 23:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Bonjour Fayssal,

Je te remercie beaucoup pour ton geste et ta gentillesse,

François

Pas de quoi. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 23:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Protest against deletion

Salam

Please look at this votoing for deletion: [2] It began in 26 Dec. and ended in 31 dec. Just 6 person participate in it. Two of them voted to keep, two of them voted to weak delete. So I don't think there's any consensus about deletion. What should we do? --Sa.vakilian 03:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sa.vakilian. What i suggest is that you refer to DRV, list your reasons why you think the AfD should be relisted or overturned. We have closed some articles before 5 days. We also deleted articles w/ a high proportion of "keep" votes (see Articles for deletion/List of dictators). -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Another request

Hey Fayssal, take a look at Vijayanagar Architecture, and Vijayanagara Architecture. The latter is the spelling we want to keep, but the former has the whole article history. So, basically, we want all that history to go to Vijayanagara Architecture. Could you delete Vijayanagara Architecture, and then rename Vijayanagar Architecture to Vijayanagara Architecture in order to acheive this end? Thanks a ton! deeptrivia (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Done DT. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Revisions

Reverted, yes, but it is still in the history and needs to be expunged. -- Avi 13:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Radiant got the right answer. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Re last warning

In reply to your 'last warning', what did i do? 220.237.23.11 14:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Check your contributions. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

didnt know you can vandal a talk page, but your the boss... 220.237.23.11 14:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, you've been blocked for trolling as per WP:TROLL. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please write your idea

Salam. How are you Fayssal? I've written a suggestion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam#From whom you can ask and also I've made a new part:Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam#From whom you can ask--Sa.vakilian 18:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your current Med Com Request

Good morning (GMT time); your consent concerning the re-assignment of mediator is required at your ongoing Mediation Committee case. If you visit the case page you will find full details, and space to agree or disagree.

Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Koavf

Fayssal, Koavf's requesting to be unblocked. I think he's been off wikipedia for long enough to reflect about the past and I concur his contributions to wikipedia were also good, problems aside. Would you support a review at WP:AN given the case? Thanks, Asterion^talk 07:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Asterion. I'll not be supporting Koavf's return unless he is partially banned on Morocco/Western Sahara related articles as i commented at the AN/I. In order to secure that we must present the case Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee for enforcement before allowing a banned user to return. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Asterion^talk 11:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 18:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Request to Lock !

hello sir , i didnt know how to make a request to lock an article , and because you are the best moderator i know i'd request from you to lock the article Saudi Arabia for the vadalism and anon. edits and random edits with silly scrips , :D sooooo what do you think man ? :) thank you Ammar 19:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC) hello sir , i didnt know how to make a request to lock an article , and because you are the best moderator i know i'd request from you to lock the article Saudi Arabia for the vadalism and anon. edits and random edits with silly scrips , :D sooooo what do you think man ? :) thank you Ammar 19:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ammar. Eid mubarak. I have the article on my watchlist and i am dealing w/ chronical vandalism there. The thing is that semi-protection is the last resort especially where blocking multiple anonymous or newly-created accounts individually is not a solution. I don't believe the situation now is out of control and there is no enough activity to warrant a semi-protection for now. Next time, if you need a semi-protection or a protection when i am offline you can make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Most of the time, an admin would answer your request immediately. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

ok but i think it going to be much worse , i find vandalism like dialy or every 2 days , i'll leave this field for you boss :) and Eid mubarak to you too :) thanx alot Ammar 00:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikifascist?

I think that the word Wikifascist has been thrown around enough to warrent its own wikipedia article to explain what the term means? Is it Quixotry to try? Perhaps...can you help me write the article so it will stick? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by In Defense of the Artist (talk • contribs) 23:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Delete and send to wiktionary. I don't want to enter in details such as the term was used sometimes by Daniel Brandt and that urban dictionary entry was made by an unhappy editor. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I recieved some message about leaving nonsense on wikipedia a while back and just checked it now and... do you work for wikipedia or something? If you do, may I suggest showing your harassees what it was they wrote, much appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr.troughton (talk • contribs) 15:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi Mr.troughton. Yes, i do work here. The warning above was related to this edit on August 17th, 2006. The link added by your account was this one. Hope it is clear. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Image

The image you removed from the Arab article is not inappropriate. It may not suit the article as well as it could, but if you wish to remove it, replace it. If you do this again without replacing the image with a more useful image, i will report you to an admin. Thanks,`thuglas^talk|edits 15:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit: I see you are an admin, regardless i will report you to another admin. If you remove such an image either use the discussion before removing it, or replace it with a better image. Its wikipedia courtesy. thuglas^talk|edits 16:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Thuglas. Just tell me from where you got this if you wish to remove it, replace it! Is is a guideline? Is it a policy? When something is inaccurate or inappropriate be bold and remove it.

Second, please always avoid threats as you did above and always assume good faith.

Third, the courtesy you are talking about was produced on my edit summary (remvd inappropriate pic - Moorish Vs Arab). The problem is your lack of courtesy when forgetting to use the edit summary.

Fourth, you have to know that the picture in question concerns a Moorish Ambassador of the Barbary States to the Court of Queen Elizabeth I of England (have a look at this link). I hope you understand what the difference is between an Arab and a Moor. Never call a Welsh an Englishman!

Fifth, before jumping to make arguments please always try to refer to the talk page of the article. Had you done that you'd have understood what's going on. Sections like Talk:Arab#Moors and Talk:Arab#Images_of_Arab_people.3F could have helped us save some time instead of using extra wikipedia bandwith. Hope it is clear. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

so in sum, First - I have not read all of the policies on wikipedia, but wikipedia IS information, removing information is not the right way to go, regardless whether it is stated or not. If you have spotted a problem, fix it, there is no need to turn it into another problem (a lack of image) for others to fix.

Second - talking to an administrator is not a threat. They determine who is correct. Since you are an admin, i am sure you understand that they do good things, not bad. Reporting you 'sounds' bad, but i dont really care how things sound. I care about what they mean. Perhaps you should assume good faith when referring to my conversation with you aswell. My goal was not to waste bandwidth, or waste time, it was to correct an article.

Third - Although I admit this has been a communication error, mostly on my end, Arab vs. Moor - inappropriate image does not convey much substance to me. Perhaps "this image is a moor not an arab" would be more appropriate. When i read the talk page, and in the Moor article there is nothing said about images, unless i missed soemthing. In the image article, there is nothing said about moors. Correct me if i am wrong, i dont have enough time to review the entire talk page

Fourth - I cannot tell the difference, but i do understand the difference. Perhaps i should have read the image name more carefully

Fifth - Because you did not leave a very detailed description of why you edited it, I thought you were CENSORING the article because you did not like the image because it had a negative visual connotation of an arab. I hate censorship, especially on wikipedia. (and i am sure that there is an policy against it)

I will not appologise because i did not intend to do anything wrong. If you review my edits, i have stopped vandalism, corrected grammar, and more recently, defended articles from censorship similar to what i understood your edit to be. This is not intended to be a retaliation of any sort; contrastingly i am defending myself. Hopefully, no hard feelings are placed on me, because i have none for you. thuglas^talk|edits 23:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

At the contrary, i have some feelings re your behaviour especially not accepting to apologize which is a human virtue. I just find it weird not accepting to apologize although "you admit this has been a communication error, mostly on your end". You can't apologize even if you couldn't just click on the image to read the source and the history behind that story. You can't apologize even if "you thought i was CENSORING the article", "to what you understood my edit to be"! This is not good. Where's the assumption of good faith? You study psychology and you are w/ the Army. Just tell me if psychology students or professionals act the same way reading people's minds and jumping to conclusions. Just tell me if at the army they do shout before asking (i believe that is true). I just believe the problem is not only your behaviour but the lack of experience in wikipedia. You got less than 70 edits and you made a mistake assuming good faith on an editor (+ 19,000) and trusted admin w/ a clean blocklog. A very important advice if you are keen to participate in this project. What is important here are human relationships and interactions. I've just heard about this policy in preparation. It is called Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Cheers -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes i study psychology. I guess professionals do act in the same way, considering i am an honours student in psychology with an A- to A average, and will be studying for a PhD in under 2 years (with 5 more to go) similarily, i have been requested as an officer in the army many times and have declined. I have just turned 19 years old. If you wish to insult my personal life, find someone else because it will not work with me. I do not appologize, and i assure you i am not the only person in the world that follows this philosophy; deal with it. I do not expect others to appologise to me, I deal with it. I admitted it was my error, that should be enough. I agree that it was based on my lack of experience with wikipedia, and also with my carelessness when editing. Unfortunately, i do not have enough time in my life to read entire talk pages to see if there is two headlines which correlate and explain your edit, which i still do not beleive they do. If I had all the time in the world, maybe i would be a perfect wikipedian and could help write articles on various subjects. Since this is not the case, you can block me as an editor, which would probably save me some time. Furthermore, you could probably block my IP from viewing wikipedia aswell, which would result in a misfortune on both ends (wikipedia, and myself), forcing me to use other ips to view wikipedia. As i said before, I made a mistake; I am quick to learn from mistakes. However, perhaps i am not meant for editing on wikipedia. thuglas^talk|edits 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, whynot - I am sorry. thuglas^talk|edits 20:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Bermuda triangle

Thanks, grazie, gracias and merci for semi-protecting the article. Now I can do useful things instead of dealing with idiots. Totnesmartin 16:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries Martin. It was just unbelievable. Happy editing. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

I am sorry for being late but please accept my New Year Greetings. I was in a conference in Honalulu for a fortnight.

I have a question though. How do you send the same message to a lot of Users at one time as people do over here e.g. New Years Greetings or Eid Greetings.

My best. -- MARWAT  14:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Marwatt. Thanks and happy new year to you as well. Actually, i dunno how to do that but you can ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). You'll surely get a prompt answer. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Happiness and economics

Moving seems to be a good idea. I have planned to expand the stub I wrote and add references, will probably do so in the not so distant future.Ultramarine 19:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sincerety of Muhammad

Hi FayssalF,

I have made an edit which would most probably be reverted.[3] All I am doing here is reporting what different historians say. Would you please follow it. You can read the Cambridge History of Islam here [4]. "His sincerety in this belief must be accepted by the modern historian...". Thanks --Aminz 12:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also Annemarie Schimmel states that the most recent studies of Muhammad indicate his honesty and profoundly religous attitude; a man who was so certain of being God's instrument. --Aminz 13:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, Itaqallah found this from Encyclopedia of Islam:

"He could now have consoled himself with the thought that he had done his duty as a “warner” and could regard [VII: 366a] it as the will of God that his people were not to be saved (cf. X, 99; XLIII, 89). But the consciousness of being a chosen instrument of God had gradually become so powerful within him that he was no longer able to sink back into an inglorious existence with his objective unachieved."

later, in evaluation of Muhammad's life:

"The great difficulty that the modern biographer of Muhammad feels on every page is this, that the real secret of his career, the wonderful strength of his personality and his power of influencing those around him by suggestion, is not recorded in the early sources and indeed could not have been, since the early, devout Muslim biographers proceeded with the assumption that his great feats and extraordinary successes were not the acts of a man, but were supernatural proofs that the Prophet was acting in the service of God. From the Kur`an, it is true, one becomes [VII:375a] acquainted with his earliest remarkable inspirations that continue to bring awe to the pious just as they no doubt did when Muhammad first recited them. Also, his eminent political gifts seen so often during the Medinan years are obvious to modern historians. Who could doubt that the commander at the battle of Badr or that the negotiator at Hudaybiya was a man of intellectual superiority and extraordinary diplomatic skill? These insights into Muhammad’s genius that are unmistakable in the sources are, however, only isolated flashes. For the most part we have to read the essentials between the lines.

The really powerful factor in Muhammad’s life and the essential clue to his extraordinary success was his unshakable belief from beginning to end that he had been called by God. A conviction such as this, which, once firmly established, does not admit of the slightest doubt, exercises an incalculable influence on others. The certainty with which he came forward as the executor of God’s will gave his words and ordinances an authority that proved finally compelling. His real personality was revealed quite openly with its limitations: his human strength and his knowledge were limited; the ability to perform miracles was denied him; and the Kur`an speaks quite frankly of his faults (XXXIV, 50; XL, 55; XLVII, 19; XLVIII, 1 f.; LXXX, 1 if.; IX, 43)."

--Aminz 12:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll be watching that. Thanks Aminz. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fayssal. The argument that some editors bring is that it is not neutral to say that Muhammad was sincere. I think neutrality (WP:NPOV) means presenting the POV of all scholars rather than arguing that the content of what the scholars actually say should be neutral. --Aminz 13:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The solution to that is to bring both POV's together. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean the POV of non-Muslim non-academic scholars? --Aminz 13:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean that. If they are as much notable as the ones you brought than of course we should mention them. WP:RS. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, But we can not mention views of non-experts, can we? I personally think that the real view of the majority is that the Qur'an is the product of Muhammad's unconscious (from their writing style). But I have no source for that. --Aminz 13:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything is well explained at WP:RS#Aspects of reliability. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Main Page of Marwat

Faisal, will you be kind enough to remove the fresh POV entries of some unknown persons in the article Marwat. I can do so but you would lend more authenticity to the process. Thanks. -- MARWAT  20:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Dania

Hey Faisal, do you know the Dania who is the singer of this song? There seems to be nothing about her on wikipedia. deeptrivia (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Never heard about her before. She is a lebanese i believe. I could only find this link for now. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Jajouka (not Joujouka) and Master Musicians of Jajouka (not Master Musicians of Joujouka)

FayssalF:

There is a problem with redirecting from Jajouka to Joujouka and from Master Musicians of Jajouka to Master Musicians of Joujouka.

I have looked on the MSN Encarta Encylopedia and found the Moroccan village listed there as Jajouka. It is not Joujouka. Here is the link showing the correct spelling as Jajouka: encarta

There is only one official site: www.jajouka.com and not (joujouka.net).

Does this help? When will someone at Wikipedia, an administrator or editor fix this redirection? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BKLisenbee (talk • contribs) 20:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi BKLisenbee. I am really confused. This issue is really bothering me a lot. I've semi-protected both Joujouka and The Master Musicians of Joujouka hoping contributors would use the talk pages to discuss the issues. I am not sure what to do, really. Discussions at talk pages would really help me sort this out for you. Coudl you please post some of your concerns re these articles at their respective talk pages? Cheers -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sir, when you try to "discuss" the Jajouka / Joujouka mess with you come up with Frank Rynne's name as and that seems to be the problem. No one can do anything until you allow others to actually to actually talk to someone who realizes it is hijacking the name of Jajouka and turning it into Joujouka or Master Musicians of Joujouka. This is not a balanced way of dealing with the issue and goes contrary to Wikipedia's philosophy of fairness to all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BKLisenbee (talk • contribs)

BKLisenbee. If you read my message above carefully you'd understand that i am not supporting any of the versions. What i am supporting in to see all parties discussing these issues at talk pages. I'd happily help moderate the discussion but someone needs to start it as i already did my part (protecting articles for the same reason) and waiting a reaction from your part at the talk pages. Once the matter is sorted out, i'll obviously un-protect the articles. Otherwise, i'll be bold and deal with this issue tomorrow as you already gave me the Encarta link. Cheers -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Help

Can you please join the dicussion on the following topics:

Aga Khani Islamic Cults

People who follow Aga Khan as an Imam are known in Pakistan as Aga Khani and one user objects to this term. You can do a Google search on this name and make your own decision. One other user from Israel thinks that Nation of Islam, Qadiani etc are not islamic cults but rather mainstream Islamic sects. I created one section where I listed all the cults in one area. So if you join this discussion I would really appreciate it

trueblood 04:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just tried to make the article more NPOV (at least at the intro). A lot of work should be done and bringing reliable sources is necessary. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Substing of templates

Never subst the {{sprotected}} template... its not designed to be a long term inclusion, a short term transcluded template is ok. Not to mention this leads to the template being subject to vandalism on the page its included on... transcluding it prevents that from happening.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Alkivar. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Islamic Cults

Can you join in the discussion apparently a few followers of Aga Khan dont like to be listed in sects and they dont want their own article either.

I need muslims to join this debate a lot of the negative comments are from User Aylahs and her created user names, as most of these delete supporters are all new.

trueblood 05:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you really want to keep this article?

Fayssal - After reviewing the significant and commendable contributions that you have made to Wikipedia, I find myself puzzled by your stance on the Islamic Cults article. It is clear by the actions of the article's proponents, that they intend for this to be a blacklist of Muslim communities that they consider to be cults. No efforts have been made to introduce sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliability to back the article's content.

You mention on the AfD page that you are looking for "a discussion on how Islam regards cults", but do you see any sign of that in this article? A generic discussion of this nature would have to demonstrate that (a) the credible notion of an Islamic cult actually exists (it can't be invented on Wikipedia - otherwise it would be original research); (b) that mainstream Islam, as represented by its recognized authorities, gives credence to this notion; and (c) the context in which this concept of Islamic cult is situated - how does the historically pluralistic character of Islam reconcile with the marginalization of particular Muslim communities as cults? Is this in keeping with the ethics of Islam or the Qur'anic injunction?

“ Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and reason with them in the better way. Lo! Thy lord is best aware of him who strayeth from His way, and He is best aware of those Who go aright. ” — (al-Nahl: 125)

“ O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is knower, Aware ” — (al-Hujurat: 13)

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia does not invent new knowledge; rather it consolidates existing research. The article Islamic Cults presumes their existence without justification. Meanwhile, Muslim scholars and holders of authority are rejecting division within the Ummah and embracing a reaffirmation of mutual respect between the Madhahib (see the International Islamic Conference final statement). It would be more apt to build on the diversity and pluralism that historically characterizes Islam and Muslim civilizations.

Please reconsider your position in this debate - I think that you will find that in addition to falling short of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion as an article, Islamic Cults is a destructive way of portraying Islam and the Muslim Ummah.

Regards -- Aylahs ^(talk) 18:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to vote in the favor of having "Islamic Cults" specially in the age of wanna-be "Muslim" sects like Al-Ahbash, Ahmadis, Qadianis .etc just to help the world readers to differentiate between the mainstream Muslims and the sects. As a matter of fact, NOT having "Islamic Cults" article corroborates the camoflaudge of these sects to hide behind mainstream Muslims to seek legitimacy, recruitment .etc. It has nothing to do with Muslim unity whatsoever. McKhan

Nuevo articulo Gibraltar tunnel

Hola Garcilaso. Cuando puedas. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hola, Fayssal, excelente artículo, no sé cómo podría mejorarlo: mi conocimiento de ese proyecto era más limitado de lo que ya has escrito. En cuanto al túnel, es una gran idea, sería mucho más que un símbolo de unión entre pueblos, algo histórico! --Garcilaso 10:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Cierto. He estado pensando (la he comunicado ya a Asterion) en crear un artículo sobre Spanish-Moroccan relationships. Te Comunicaré la estructura este fin de semana y necesitaré tu opinión. Puedes ver Morocco and the European Union como paralelo. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A very Californian RfA thanks from Luna Santin

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belated thank you for all of your kind words. I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we? Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be. Again, thank you. –Luna Santin

Pretty significant delay, unfortunately, but if it's any consolation, my tardiness in leaving this message has been filled with a lot of admin actions. :) Thanks for your trust, back when. Luna Santin 13:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)