User talk:Tigeroo/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

License tagging for Image:300px-Ghaznevid.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:300px-Ghaznevid.JPG. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Welcome!

Hello, Tigeroo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  BhaiSaab talk 17:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Muslim community

Hi, I've started a discussion about your addition of Yoruba to Category:Muslim communities on Talk:Yoruba (at the bottom). Briefly, it boils down to the problem that the category system simply isn't fit to adress issues of cultural identity. — mark ✎ 07:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Categories

Hello, Tigeroo, I have seen that you are editing the categories about Spanish history. I have written some collaborations about Al-Áldalus and its influence in Spanish history. It is undeniable, but it is also mistaking to put under the category Al-Ándalus articles about different non-Islamic historical moments and places, like Castile, Cortes Generales, and the different medieval Christian kingdoms. I don´t know why you have deleted several categories like Middle Ages, that are informative of the historial moment. I would ask you to stop for a moment and explain it. Your edits should also be accompained of a summary, explaining the reasons of the changes. Thank you very much for your understanding. Yours sincerely, --Garcilaso 13:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, it is a pleasure talking to you. Your interest in tagging the topics related to Islam is necessay, from my point of view. I have also categorised some articles before for the same reason. But categories are, as far as I know, almost a definition of the article, and tagging Castile (for example) as Al-Ándalus would be mistaking. I have talked to an administrator who knows more about categories than both of us, and he will help us to fix what is necessary. Only let me do a parallel example: if somebody categorises the countries and subjects of Latin America as Category:Spain, of if somebody writes Category: Roman Empire to most of the cities of Europe, it would be an error. Threre must be written in the articles, for example, Kingdom of León, a mention of what was happening in the rest of the peninsle, or even, if you want, in "See also". Others, like Cortes Generales don´t have any justification to the allusion. Other article, Inquisición Española, develloped its "activities" in Spanish territory, and most of the time, when Al-Andalus didn´t exist anymore. About Mudéjar, I thought before about the link to islamic culture and that is why I left the tag "Al-Andalus" to the article, although it is inexact. I think that a possible sollution is to create a new category, something like "Arab influence in the Iberian Peninsle", or "Arab influence in Spanish culture", and that is where articles like Mudéjar and some others, like Arabic influence on the Spanish language could be located, as they are not referred neither to Al-Ándalus nor to Islam directly.

Other point is the reference to actual Spain as Al-Andalus. Spain, in arab is saidإسبانيا (Isbania), and there is an autonomous community in it called Andalucía, that is a named derivated from Al-Ándalus, but it isn´t even the territory of Al-Ándalus ( that took at the begining much more lands, and, with the reconquista, decreased gradually until 1492 when dissapeared). The reference to Al-Andalus in Andalucía is purely ethymological. Most of the cities and territories of Spain have names derivated from Latin or Arabic, and we don´t call León Legio Septima Gemina or Gibraltar Jebel-Tariq. So you probably have heard the name Al-Ándalus referred to actual Spain, but it is used by a small number of fanatics: I have some Moroccan and Egiptian friends and the only time I heard that aception was in TV, vindicated by Al-Qaeda, and it is as "justified" as vindicating Europe for the Roman Empire, or most of Asia for Gengis Khan heirs. I will be delighted to work with you whenever you want. I am very interested in this topic (I am learning Arabic for pure delight, and form part of the Wikiprojects Middle Ages, Architecture and Spain). Cheers!--Garcilaso 10:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Tigeroo, I am glad to see that we both agree in the main subjects. I thought that Reconquista was fine for the kingdoms as it it include in Category: al-Andalus. Due to my bad English I don´t understand exactly what is your proposal about Spanish Inquisition. Correct me if I am wrong: you say that we should include the topics about that time after 1492 and before the Moriscos expulsion in the category Spanish Inquisition. If it is the point, I think that it would be a poor vision of that times. Although it is not well known, the relationship between the moorish and the christian population after -and before- 1492, was not always of war and enmity. Before, we have splendid collaboration moments under the Caliphate of Cordoba, under the Alfonso X the Wise in Toledo, or even later, the relationship between Pedro I and the Nasrid kings of Granada, that brought as well the Alhambra and the Alcázar of Sevile, at both sides of the fronteer. But after 1492, and up to 1609 or even up to today, Spanish Inquisition was not the only link between Moorish and Christians, and Mudéjar architecture testifies it, as well as some of Spanish cooking, and Arabic influence is present in our language. That is the point for the creation of that category: there could be referred bad things (the expulsion, the Revolt of Alpujarras, the Inquisition...) but also good things. That is more encyclopedic, as it shows two faces of the same reality. I would work hard in creating articles about the subject (for example, a proper article about neo-mudéjar, or working harder in the article Arabic influence on the Spanish language) if the category was created.
About Mudéjar, as it is now, it has the categories "Muslim communities", because Mudéjares, as a group, were muslim, and it also has "Category: Al Ándalus", although it is inexact, precisely because of the very strong influence of Moorish architecture, and I think it is fine like this (until the new category is created). But it is not Islamic architecture. Of course, I know that Islamic architecture is not only mosques, and Alhambra, or the palaces of Ispahán testify it, but Mudéjar architecture has a very precise religious adscription: Civil works were houses and palaces for christian owners, and some of them had a chapel in it. (I have been inside of a couple of this domestic chapels, and they are absolutely charming for their tiny scale and fine work). Relligious constructions were always churches, cathedrals or monasteries, except for the few sinagogues remaining, pure jewels of architecture (I know three: Santa María la Blanca and El Tránsito, in Toledo, and the Sinagogue of Córdoba, which has the geometric and palm decoration, and the inscriptions are in Hebrew). So Mudéjar architecture is a eminently relligious style, but not of Islam, but of Christianity (and Jewish religion in a minor extenct). That is exactly the definition of the style: the architecture made in the Christian Kingdoms, for non-muslim purposes and owners, made mainly (but not only) by moorish architects and workers. It has both techniques and aesthetics of Moorish and Christian architecture, and we often speak about Romanesque-Mudéjar, Gothic-Mudéjar or Renaissance-Mudéjar. I think that as it is now, with the links to Al-Andalus and to the Muslim communities in the categories, it is well defined, from my point of view.
Well, that is what I think and what I have read and seen, but I will be delighted to share more informations and to widen my point of view with your data and opinions on the subject. I think that that new category is necessary to include all the influence of Moorish culture in Spain. Yours sincerely, Garcilaso 12:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Campaignbox templates

Hey! Just to let you know, standard convention is to avoid giving dates in campaignbox templates, and never to add categories directly to them. There is more information about them here that you might find helpful as well. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
  • Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
  • Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, or periods.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 10:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

maps

I took a pd map of Eurasia off of Wikipedia, removed the boundaries, colored the sea black and the land white for clarity, and then just fill in borders as appropriate.

Give this blank map a try:

Image:BlankEurasia.png

Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Historiography of early Islam

Tigeroo, you not only ironed out my language, you removed some of the sense of my sentences. I think it's relevant to a discussion of Wansborough to note that he has a dense hermetic style. I have the impression that you feel that "big words" aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Care to discuss? Zora 07:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the problem is that language that seems perfectly ordinary to me seems ornate or dated to others. I read a great many Victorian novels and I also proof them, for Distributed Proofreaders (we make free e-books). Thanks for being nice about it. I will restore the bit re his style. That's MY impression (I have one of his books and I just can't read it) and I'm sure I've read it elsewhere ... I just need to come up with a cite. Zora 07:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

History of Hinduism

Hi, the mention of the Islamic attacks on Hinduism and the subsequent defeat of the Islamic rulers in the 18th and 19th centuries are essential for this article. And ok, "quest" may not have been the word I was looking for.--Babub→Talk 10:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You say: "Please also try not to rely too much on Ram Sita Goel, expand your horizons for reference material." There is no wikipedia policy on excluding Sitram Goel as a capable historian of Hindu history. Except for ad hominem attacks on him, his historical accounts have never been challenged in public.
You say: "As you can see the editors were not even sure if the Marathas should have gotten a mention at all as they did lower down in the article." Just bcos the editors weren't sure, it doesn't mean that this issue is irrelevant.--Babub→Talk 08:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for the clarifications. Cheers to you too. --Babub→Talk 09:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Transclusion

v • d • e
Campaigns of Muhammad

It just means the content of the box are included in the page (as shown at right) rather than the box merely being linked to (like this). Kirill Lokshin 12:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Re Aisha

Hi Tigeroo. My edit was a removal of something saying that (All the historical references to the Aisha's age at marriage reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status, and, implicitly her virginity). [1]. If you go to the references section you'd find that there's only one reference and not many as the note i removed claimed. So for me, at this stage, only D. A. Spellberg claims that and not all. We don't know who are the all. -- Szvest 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Muslim conquests / Umayyad

I lifted the content I inserted into Muslim conquests — which you found objectionable — from Umayyad and from Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent, so you may want to check those for similar objections. Calbaer 14:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Domestic behaviour in Islam

Salaam, I edited Domestic behaviour in Islam. I think this article still needs some attention. If you can improve it alittle bit, that'll be great. Secondly, I don't know, what is the problem with the references, why they are appearing twice. TruthSpreaderTalk 11:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Salaam, can you please give use your feedback changing Women in Muslim societies article to Women in Islam, in which later is based purly on jurist opinions. If you can help, that'll be great. TruthSpreaderTalk 05:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Crusade sources

The Catholic Encyclopedia is a bad source because it cannot possibly be neutral about the crusades. I find it odd that you do not realize this. Also, if you are using the online version, that is almost 100 years old and ridiculously out of date. As for Karen Armstrong, she writes popular junk, not the kind of quality that I think we are all looking for. It is difficult enough to define a crusade, we should not grab any old definition out of some book written by a non-specialist. Adam Bishop 06:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats OK that it cannot be neutral, it can still be referred to for definitions and concepts. It's a matter of what it is referred to for. The Crusades were fought for the Church, for various reasons, they were known as Holy Wars to the Crusaders who coined the name themselves, I think these sort of things can be cited from those sources and its better than no sources. If there are specific problems most the referenced information is common knowledge and can be easily referenced from better sources as well and we can take these up, please note what it has been referenced for, and frankly it was the easiest source for me grab to include common historical facts, so that they were not simply edited out.--Tigeroo 06:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
They didn't invent the term "holy war"! Where are you getting that from? Adam Bishop 15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hagarism

As you have been involved in editing this article, I think it's important for you to comment on recent developments on the talk page of the article. Thank you. BhaiSaab talk 16:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism

Please have a look at the talkpageGreetings, Sacca 14:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Bold text

Blocking

Looks like your IP is shared with that guy ythat got blocked. I've unblocked it. You should be OK now, if not e-mail me with your IP. --Doc 13:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

hey

what do you think about User:Lionee.. judging from his contribs he seems like a sock and a parody of your SN to me. ITAQALLAH 11:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't think of it like that but he seems to have been created solely for reverts.--Tigeroo 11:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
question is by whom? can't go for WP:RFCU unless we have an idea of who, right? ITAQALLAH 11:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Try from their position and edit history or just call him out as a vandal. I have no clue how this works really beyond 3RR.--Tigeroo 11:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Three reverts?

Tigeroo I think you might be over three reverts but itd be a real drag to report you. You might consider self-reverting?Opiner 08:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, just checked no I haven't commited 3RR, "yet". Any rate check the quote on the talk page for the NPOV issue.--Tigeroo 08:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Tigeroo you have certainly violated the three revert rule. I have counted and have the diffs. Please self revert.Opiner 08:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Unblock Request

We can't unblock you at this time, because you haven't given us the information we need to even look into your block. You yourself were not blocked; if you were prevented from editing, you must have been autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. I'm removing your unblock request because there's nothing we can do without this information. If you still want to be unblocked, feel free to add the {{unblock}} tag back to this page, and be sure to include the message you saw when you tried to edit, including the IP address. This is what the message looks like. Without that information, we can't help you. --  Netsnipe  ►  14:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


All the autoblocks from that block have expired, and I have undone the original block (as it seems to not be necessary, and was causing collateral damage). You should be able to edit now. Mangojuicetalk 14:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:

Autoblock of 213.42.21.81

Request handled by:  Netsnipe  ►  17:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

quran and ramadan.

Does it mean that for the first 22 years, only a part of quran was recited (as it continued to grow till he died.) Thanks.--nids(♂) 07:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Good question I am not sure at what point it started, but it used to be a month in which the revelations todate were reviewed. --Tigeroo 11:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Decent edits

Thanks for clarifying the bin Qasim thing in Persecution of Hindus. It's fairly NPOV and mentions both views.Hkelkar 11:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad introduction

Tigeroo, if you are to pass judgement on other editors' prose ("horrible"), consider that your second, third and fourth sentences are passives ("He is regarded as a prophet…", "Muhammad is believed by Muslims…", "His mission is regarded…") - a textbook example of poor style. Take a writing course; this is one of the very first things you will be taught to avoid. If you cannot maintain the subject of the article as subject of the predicate, consider that your narrative may be off-topic - to wit, it's about Muslim belief rather than about Muhammad himself. There is already an article about Muslim belief..Proabivouac 00:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I know your interest in Muhammad article. That is why I thought that you might also be interested in the on going mediation about Muhammad pictures in the article. I think you are gifted with conveying things very clearly and impressively. That is why may be you could help there by joining it .. --- ابراهيم 16:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ibn Hazm

Hi, I reverted your edit. You make a good point that elongated isn't proper.... I changed it to "full". However, the reason the full name was pushed to later was because having a huge Arabic name in bold is not useful and does not make for a better article. He is not called by his full name so pushing it back a little makes the article look nicer and emphasizes that he is called ibn Hazm, not Abū Muḥammad ʿAlī ibn Aḥmad ibn Saʿīd ibn Ḥazm. Is that alright? I see the point you were making but I (and Striver) think that it's problematic putting the full name right at the intro. Striver made a new section called "name" which I thought was overkill but I think adding to the end of the intro works well. Comments? Questions? Revert war? :) --gren グレン 04:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'd buy your way if you don't bold the full name. I think doing that just makes it distracting. So, if you want to rever to that I won't contest it. Also Template:Stamp says that the stamp can only be used if it's for illustrating the stamp... which in that usage it wouldn't be. I didn't mean to remove it (I originally uploaded it) I just didn't pay attention in my revert. However, I won't re-add it because of the copyright issues... but, I wouldn't really remove it if you add it. Although, we should find a better image but my few searches haven't found any. gren グレン 05:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hi, left a couple clarification questions at Talk:First_Crusade#Background_Issues, thanks. -- Stbalbach 16:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 213.42.21.81 lifted/expired.

Request handled by:  Netsnipe  ►  11:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Filipino muslim community

Are you Filipino or muslim? The Filipino muslim situation is complex and needs to be well analyzed and not put into one fix-all category. Before fixing that category, please reason out at the discussion page like I did, wikipedia is well known for maintaining a harmony despite edit wars. Putting the filipino moro culture and ethnicity into the Islam religion category is like putting American culture and ethnicity into a christian religion category (or English religion category if there is an English religion). Please work with me on this one. At least debate down there at the Islam category where your arguments will have longterm and effective results.--Jondel 03:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The Way To Say Something

What do you mean when you say info added ?

Looking forward to your opinion,
with respect,
(Lunarian 12:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC))

Thank you for a swift reply. My concern was for the complete section that appeared to have been oblitterated in the process. In other words "info deleted". A minor detail ?

with maintained respect,
(Lunarian 11:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

"The way to say something" indeed., we must entitle ourselves a laugh once in a while. Si quieres ver a su amigo andar parraste a mojar. You are way ahead already. (Don't bother to understand)

 :D, (Lunarian 14:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

Crusades

What happened to WP:BOLD? And where are your comments on the talk page? It would make reverting a perfectly appropriate edit a bit more palatable if you'd have made some kind of comment other than "redo it." Kaisershatner 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, since we've established each other's good faith I will edit and note this on Talk:Crusades rather than leaving you notes here as I go. Hope that's ok. Kaisershatner 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. Better place to do it, where other editors can come it too.--Tigeroo 15:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk

My friend, If we have a discussion instead of reverting each other's edits we might contribute to improving the article. The article's outline as suggested by you was outstanding, and it stays. Now if you would send me a list of the issues you want addressed then we might end this edit conflict quickly, and contribute to a good article in the process.

Kindly tell me:-

  • Sunga's actions are disputed. I can provide authoritative citations that they are. Will linking him to the acts alone not be enough instead of detailing those acts and disproving them in the next line, thereby resulting in conflict and confusion for the reader.
  • The report, why does it belong in the "Political and military influences" section which addresses Buddhism under Indian rulers? Why not just shift it to later sections?
  • A period of Guptas to Muhammad bin Quasim, includes both Shahis. We can write Turk and hindu or just Shahi. Your call.

Cheers!

Freedom skies 13:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Tigeroo, excuse me if I have given space to confusion, but I was only reverting a blocked user that insisted on editing nothwithstanding his block; so I reverted his edit (applying WP:BLOCK) and semiprotected the article to prevent him from editing futher. Ciao, --Aldux 23:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Shakya

I don't understand why you have suggested merging Saka and Shakya. Can you explain on the talk page or somewhere?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 07:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, what literature is this that treats Saka as the same thing as Shakya? I can't say I've seen that. Perhaps Shakya becomes "Saka" in some language outside of India, such as Tibetan or some East Asian language. If you have seen jargon in a local language, that might explain it.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 21:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tigeroo

Freedom Skies has rather uncivilly challenged your edits. I would suggest not "rising to the bait". NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 04:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to keep it civil. Just need some help to keep thefocus on the editorial issues.--Tigeroo 14:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about this[[1]]. I'm probably going to have to do some more reading. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 16:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This is probably the best I can do[[2]], at least on short notice. I think it's a pretty good link overall, but kind of sketchy as a source. I'll keep looking (and learning). Please remember that Freedom Skies is not an enemy. Anyone that teaches us is most certainly a friend.:) NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 17:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Howdy.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 21:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

advise

Hello this is Nadirali.We probably haven't spoken before but I'm messeging you regarding your edit wars and disputes.Though i understand edit warring can be necessary at times,I strongly discourage it.If you disagree with an article,then try to discuss it first to aviod engaging in an edit war.Please note that edid warring on the same article more than 3 times in 24 hours is a violation of the WP:3RR rule. If you're having difficulty focusing,then I suggest you take a break from editing for a short time.

I hope my advise will be helpful to you.

Best regards

Nadirali 20:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi.I got your message.I agree with you there are many disruptive users here on wiki who have no intention of discussing matters such as these.My best advice at this time is seeking administrative action.Don't let it escalate.It only gets you into trouble.If you feel these people are not being reasonable,then go here.I first encourage an effort to engage in dialogue.But if that doesn't work then ask an administrator to intervine.

Nadirali 08:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem

The way I see it, academic opinion>Religious text. Only religious text says Pushyamitra persecuted Buddhists, academics like Thapar (whom I know btw) carry precedence because academic opinion in more important. It looks like the standard rule on wikipedia. At present, it does not look like any academics confirm the Buddhist scripture as literal truth, so... Rumpelstiltskin223 13:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Who says that "there is truth to it"? As far as I know, Thapar says that there is no truth to it.Please provide a book where she says anything to the contrary. As far as I can see, the only people who say "persecution" are partisans. Rumpelstiltskin223 13:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The source is cited in the article straight from a book, there is also Marshall in his guide Sanchi etc. Also look here. The problem is both sides see each other as partisans. Thapar does not say there is no truth to it, just that it might be an exaggeration, they can't be sure and that is the more common line. This ambiguity and diversity of opinion is what the article should reflect.--Tigeroo 13:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting. This Mishra seems to present a view against Thapar. By the way, Thapar refutes the allegation of persecution rather resoundedly actually (based on her lectures). Actually, the "source" from her books that recount "Persecution of Buddhists" does not quote Thapar's view but the view of Buddhist scripture as recounted by Thapar, so quoting it as Thapar's conclusion (which, in unquoted paras, make her position clear) is a misrepresentation. Rumpelstiltskin223 13:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that, based on your Mishra link, the term "Academic Debate" is okay.Rumpelstiltskin223 13:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tigeroo

I'm sorry, but the debate going on over at History of Buddhism in India is way over my (current) head. More shamefully, I don't care much to research very thoroughly. My true areas of deep interest and/or knowledge lie elsewhere. I'm backing out the debate but I entreat you to be civil in both your editing and your comments at all times, in the interest of the article and Wikipedia itself.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 21:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks:)NinaEliza 13:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I read over the article and the improvement in tone and copy are vast compared to the version I came to. Your suggestion on the talk page is a good one. I'm glad I left - I obviously wasn't helping:).Nina Odell 16:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I realize I don't know the issues, but please consider this. In my own religion, pretty much all of the articles related to it are either too POV (sometimes overly-positive, so they're not credible) too long and convoluted, or just plain non-existent.
One article practically has (or had) a talk page debate IN the article itself . With time and experience, I might address these issues, but I wouldn't do it without help, and I wouldn't do it without keeping it neutral. As it stands right now, I'm just too close. I hope this is a bit of comfort. Nina Odell 17:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:Words to avoid

Thanks Tigeroo for the tip to this article. Its also saying dont use 'report.'Opiner 07:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I just signed up as a mediator for Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26 Decline of Buddhism in India and came here to ask you if you'd you accept me as a mediator. But from Nina's message above it looks like it got resolved. Or am I being too optimistic? — Sebastian 08:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I moved our talk to User talk:SebastianHelm/Buddhism. — Sebastian 04:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you give me your e-mail address, please? Or is it fine if I post something critical here? — Sebastian 22:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead. Post critical away :). If it doesn't kill me, it should make me stronger.--Tigeroo 22:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
That's the right attitude! So here you go:

Goals

My idea behind the goals column was to find win-win solutions (as e.g. described in Getting to Yes). That's of course the hard part, it's something a good negotiator should be able to find out. I'm willing to invest quite some time into clarifying this together with each of you. Let me use an example from what has been posted so far. (I'm not picking on you, and in particular I'm not guessing anybody's goals. I just had to use something as an example.)

In #4: Evangelization @ Sungas, you wrote under goal:

  • "This quote is being inserted out of the context it was used in the article to say that historically hinduism exerted no pressure on Buddhism."

This does not describe your goal - it describes what you think the other party's goal is. Can you see what I mean? Somehow, we humans are wired so that it's often easier to presume someone else's goals than state our own goal clearly. If the other party just mirrored your statement, it might read like this:

  • "The statement can stand by itself and does not need context. Obviously, the other party only wants to censor it to leave people with the impression that Hinduism exerted pressure on buddhism."

That's a silly game that doesn't lead us anywhere.

Therefore, when you formulate your goals, please be honest about your own goals. The following principles may help you:

  • Be generic enough to allow the mediator to find common ground
  • Be specific enough to distinguish your goal from the current situation. If you just write "NPOV", it may not be obvious to the mediator what you want.

If I had a way to ask you confidentially, I might ask something like:

  • Can you convince me that the quote is not legitimate?

If you can, then we have a solution. That would be easy. Now let's assume you can't. I then would ask:

  • Do you still feel it should be removed?

If you said no, the matter would be settled. If you said yes, I'd say something along these lines:

  • It seems you're concerned that readers' opinion about Buddism could suffer from reading this quote - is that so?
  • Why do you feel that way?
  • Can we together come up with any other ways that could address this concern?

And we'd take it from there. Once we found one or a couple of options, we'd post them on the mediation page.

So, do you see why I'd like you to rewrite your goals? In real life, the above conversation would take a couple of minutes. We don't have that luxury. It would take us at least an hour per issue, and if the other party has a similar number of issues it becomes an impossible endeavour. Therefore, I need you to help me part of the way. Imagine I'm talking with you and I'm asking you questions like the above. My goal is to find common ground. When you find something that might help me, put a name for it in the solution column and describe it on the talk page.

Have fun with that - you're doing it for two good causes: For Wikipedia and for a better understanding between religions! — Sebastian 23:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I just found what probably was the source for you confusion: When I moved the discussion out of the "issues list", I had kept the same name. To avoid any further confusion, I'll call the one on the project page "Goal oriented issues table", and the one on the discussion page "Issues discussion". Please fill out goals that in the Goal oriented issues table; as per above, these goals should (a) address your concerns and (b) have a realistic chance of being accepted by the other party. Thank you! — Sebastian 21:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll look at my goals again and revise them. In the case of this particular instance I would say it would indeed create the wrong impression about Buddhist-Hindu reactions. To me the manner of its usage creates the impression that the both article it is sourced from quotes says there was negative pressure. However, the BBC article that is sourced from says that there was. Now, I want to understand what other wants or feels it means. That's kind of why I called in a mediator, I am having a hard little luck talking to him, he has been generally non-communicative. Maybe he doesn't see me as listening to him, maybe he will feel more comfortable talking to someone he doesn't see as having a vested interest. From my end I just can't see how he can justify the impression created by that sentence in this article.--Tigeroo 22:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
You're doing a great job at communicating your frustration while avoiding any personal attacks, and considering responsibility yourself. I think it's natural for humans to not listen to who we perceive as our opponent. This is why I am so adamant about avoiding any edit wars. (And it was why I had one editor blocked with whom you had been engaged in an edit war two days ago).
As for the goals, it's fine if one party doesn't understand the other party's goal, as long as I understand them. I think I understood two of your goals, which is why I kept them in the goal oriented issues table. I'm aware that there is currently an asymmetry in that I'm asking more from you because you posted all the issues so far. But I don't see how it could work to your disadvantage if you spend more time on convincing me (and anyone else who reads this) than the other side.
Let's keep specific issue discussion in the issues discussion; I hope it's fine if I copy part of your reply there. — Sebastian 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, in copying this, I'm leaving out the sentence "In the case of this particular instance I would say it would indeed create the wrong impression about Buddhist-Hindu reactions." While you're trying to express it very nicely, the problem is that it boils down to "I think it's wrong". That is the kind of statement which lends itself to just being mirrored (see above). I may end up paraphrasing you. — Sebastian 00:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Move completed

Hi Tigeroo! I just moved the content of the table on the talk page, and changed the table to contain only goals that have a chance that Freedom skies can agree with them. Please change as you see fit, and fill in the blanks. Thank you! — Sebastian 08:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Was that necessary? We can not conduct a mediation while both parties are putting their energy into an edit war. I am especially disappointed since, in the conversation above, we just happened to talk about precisely the issue you've been reverting, and instead of replying to me, you deleted the very text we were talking about. Sinced you didn't even try to address my question above, I will revert to the other party's version.

WP:3RR states: "Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day." Moreover, I should add a warning template here for repeatedly not including appropriate edit summaries.

As a sign of goodwill, I will be lenient for now. I am writing a similar message to the other party. — Sebastian 02:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I allowed myself to be goaded into responding to a no desc rv with a like one. --Tigeroo 16:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! I hear you're taking responsibility, which gives me great hope for a successful mediation. — Sebastian 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You can relax

[6], [7]. I hope this will calm down the emotions around this case and give you some time to bring this case a big step towards a harmonious solution by filling in the goals, as described above. Thank you, — Sebastian 08:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not sure what this post is about.--Tigeroo 17:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I just meant you'll have some peace to work on what I proposed in #Goals above. — Sebastian 21:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

End of intermission

Freedom Skies wrote on the mediation talk page that he expects to be back tomorrow. Could you please check if you agree with the two goals that I put in your mouth - that is: in the goals column (#1: Dalits @ intro and #3: Buddhism outside @ Sungas)? That would allow us to start the discussion with these two issues. Of course, it would be nice if you could also fill in at least a couple of the blanks in the goals column, but there's no rush if you're fine with only discussing the two that have goals for now. — Sebastian 23:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

First item closed!

Good news, we found one issue where Freedom skies basically agrees with you: #8: But @ Islam. I will remove the phrase now. But there are other issues that are waiting for your input or reply, and I really urge you to take a look, in particular at all items marked "Ti" in the goal oriented issues table, and at section Acute changes. See you soon! — Sebastian 03:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Huna Post on Middle Kingdoms Page

Hello Tigeroo,

I noticed your 7 month old post on the Middle Kingdoms page regarding the Hunas and just wanted to comment in case you were still interested in help. Based on my research from several sources, the gupta empire didn't collapse as much as it did fragment and wane. The Hun invasions went as far east as Malwa and as far south as Gujarat. There is no concrete evidence to date that supports anything involve a Gangetic conquest. Nevertheless, much of the void between the Guptas and Harsha that you mention is actually filled by independent kingdoms. While the Sassanids most probably incorporated the Kabul Valley and Northern Pakistan into their domains, as the Kushans were their tributaries starting from about the 4th century, Rajasthan and Malwa, and perhaps the Indian punjab can be accounted for by independent kingdoms and tribal ganasanghas. Examples are Yasovarman of Malwa (who drove the Huns from the plains of India) and the Yaudheyas, who assisted Baladitya in his victory over the Huns (it appears that although the Gupta empire disintegrated, one of her scions accomplished some sort of pyrrhic victory). As for Gujarat, which the sassanid page rather surpisingly includes as a part of the empire, both textual and archaeological evidence establishes the maitrakas as the rulers of this region (they are descendents of a Gupta General). I hope that helps, or if you aren't particularly interested in this right now, I hope it wasn't a waste of your time.

Regarding other matters on the page, I wanted to bring up the Middle Kingdoms template, which appears to be a little inaccurate. It classifies Gandhara and the Shahis as foreign kingdoms when there's really not much to account for that. Names such as jayapala, anandapala, and trilochanapala are hardly foreign, and I'm sure I don't need to discuss Shakuni and Gandhari with you. Since you seem to be a major contributor, I thought I'd pick your brain on this one.

Regards,

Devanampriya

Sorry, for the late reply. I have not worked on that page much since but have come across a lot of information myself while working on other pages dealing with the region and time. It appears that they raided and militarily controlled areas upto Ahmedabad for a while. Even if they sacked it and levied tribute, depending on your take it could be interpreted as conquest or not. Wether this can be classified as conquest or a temporary gain is debateable due to the fluid nature of warfare in that era and the lack of fixed lines. A great example is Alexander's march. It was not unheard of for border kingdoms to pay tributes to more than one emperor just to hedge their bets either, ergo they could show up on the rolls of those courts or areas and so be assigned to both kingdoms for the same time!!! Administration was not like today especially so far from the centers of power.
As for [[Gandhara], it would be a mistake to associate it with Shakuni etc. during this time period. It had been a satrapy of the Sassanids for a long while and the Aechmanids even longer. After the Hun kings had gained control they continued to rule as vassals for the Sassanids once again after their defeat at the hands of the Gokturk-Sassanid combine. Later the Turks would themselves vie with the Sassanids for a century over control of Bactria. The independent Satrapy mentioned here reflects the Hun vassals of Turkic/Hunnish Tokharistan who were soon replaced by either a Hepthalite dynasty that claimed Turkic anscestry or was directly assigned as an appange to a Turkic dynasty that began to exert indepent authority of the Western Turks somewhere in the 7th century. Hence the Turk-Shahi dynasty rather than the Hindu-Shahi dynasty of jayapala et al. that came to power in the 9th century.
Hope that helps.--Tigeroo 21:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock

This user's request to have the autoblock on his/her IP address lifted has been DECLINED.

This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy or zombie computer. To prevent abuse, editing from these proxies is currently prohibited. If your ISP has misconfigured their proxy, you can try bypassing it by logging into Wikimedia's secure gateway at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/. For more information about open proxies and what you can do, please see the WikiProject on open proxies. (Multi-RBL lookup • VCN proxycheck)

  • Decline reason:

Sorry, that IP address is showing up as a trojaned machine. Please see here. Once the machine is reformatted (if necessary) and removed from the SORBS database, please request another unblock if you are still blocked. -- Yamla 00:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't move the article before discussion

Hi, I found you had moved Islamicization in post-conquest Iran without any discussion. So I reverted it and put a comment in the talk:Islamicization in Iran#Moving the article. Please write your idea there then let others do so.--Sa.vakilian 02:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks will follow there. Just seemed that the material was about more than just islamization.--Tigeroo 20:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. We can move some of them to other articles like Islam in Iran and etc.--Sa.vakilian 03:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your post on Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent

2 March 2007 (edit) (undo)

You say "There is considerable evidence from writings of Al-Biruni, Sogidan, Uyghur and Manichean texts that the Buddhists, Hindus and Jains were considered People of the Book and references to Buddha as Burxan or a prophet can be found.[1] After the initial destruction and pillage Buddhists, Jains and Hindus were granted "protected subject status" as dhimmis."

Since I ve just finished reading Al Barunis travels in India I am intrigued by your above cited reference ....I do not seem to have found it mentioned anywhere that Hindus have been considered people of the book . Please specifically cite the chapter and lines .

The very concept of Dhimmi was and is atrocious for non Muslims ...., to cite the granting of Dhimmi status as a sanatised notion is even more ridiculous seen from the perspective of the people "granted" this abomination . When you say "were granted status of people of the book " this is even more presumptuous ....it alludes to some sort of uplifting of status ....don’t think Iraqis s would enjoy being given status and rights of Dhimmis by Americans .

Your citing of sources needs to be more specific and seems deliberately intended to mislead Intothefire 09:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


Tigeroo

As proof of this statement of yours which I had reproduced where you said "There is considerable evidence from writings of Al-Biruni, Sogidan, Uyghur and Manichean texts that the Buddhists, Hindus and Jains were considered People of the Book and references to Buddha as Burxan or a prophet can be found.[1] After the initial destruction and pillage Buddhists, Jains and Hindus were granted "protected subject status" as dhimmis."

You have provided a link to the page for your source . I looked up this page .But this is what it says " It may also indicate, however, that the Buddhists were accepted as “people of the Book” and, along with the Hindus and Jains, afforded protected subject dhimmi status after the initial destruction." .It says may indicate , which is entirely different from the import of your above quote .


With regard to Slavery and Dhimmi hood in Islam this is my thinking . The institutionally sanctioned oppression in Hinduism through the machinations of caste or the Quaranic sanction of Slavery or Dhimmi hood are both abhorrent forms of apartheid . I see no reason to defend either.


As regards Muslims and Dhimmis . When you read the histories of Persia , Afghanistan , Pakistan or India , all regions with ancient sophisticated pre Islamic civilizations . The so called Muslim conquerors from these very regions are themselves conquered people. Day before yesterdays Kafir or Dhimmi is yesterday Momin . The tendency to degenerate , disassociate and demonize their own pre-Islamic Zoroastrian , Mezdic , Buddhist , Jain , Hindu , Jewish heritage is pitiable .


The justification of apartheid through the practice of the concept of Dhimmi (historically or in the present ) by some contemporary Muslims people is as inexplicable as the justification by some Hindus of the apartheid practiced by upper castes on lower castes among Hindus .

Appreciate your apology but could not figure out why you needed to apologise because I did not find any statement by you directed personally against me , hope we continue the debate this way . Cheers Intothefire 10:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Tigeroo

(all your quotes in bold below)

You say
"As far as the Kaffir and Momin things goes, I think it is not really a rejection of their heritage or it's acheivements, but a sense akin to that one may feel for the stone age man"

Even as I accept your prerogative to your own opinions viz a viz Kafirs and Dhimmis Tigeroo your choice of analogy comparing Kafirs to cavemen is a telling comment of your mindscape on the subject ….would it be fair then to say that you equate contemporary Kafir to cavemen as well  ? although I don’t think Tigeroo s views on Kafir =cavemen is going to endear you to the kafirs in the virtual or real world .

You then go on to say with in ref to descendents of erstwhile Kafirs and Dhimmis viewing their pre islamic heritage as

"a mistake you made in your past".

Would you mean like something to be ashamed of ?
or embarrassed of  ?
or the ignorance of forefathers of earlier generations from the past ?
(how contemporary cultures differ is interesting for example from where I come equating my grandfather worse my grandmother to a caveman would certainly be considered disrespectful , would you find that strange ? )

and then you go on to say
"You get enlightened and grow up and then you are better for it. Yes, it is a value judgement on the past"

Well you have every right to declare yourself an enlightened grown up and pass judgments on the past …call kafirs cavemen or whatever. But I do hope your relative enlightenment is based on a thorough knowledge of the - other - who you consider Kafir, Dhimmi or caveman , instead of thorough ignorance .

A question for you then ! There are credible reports that some people in Saudi Arabia (who believe they know best), have been involved with destruction of vital historical tangible heritage (structures) related to the prophet . A part of their rational for this wanton destruction of this vital early Islamic heritage stems also from a simmilar logic you used earlier , they believe that the non destruction of these in the past has been – to quote you "a mistake you made in your past".

Do you agree? Disagree? Selectively agree? Selectively disagree?


Cheers Intothefire 17:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo Next
Well I have your views on the subject and you have mine !
Cheeers from a Kafir then !
Intothefire 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!

We were wondering what happened to you. The case has been closed because nobody showed any activity there. You may of course reopen the case, but if I were you I would wait for the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Freedom_skies. — Sebastian 04:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Source

Can you please source your additions [8]. Thanks --Aminz 09:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Next Tigeroo delets my posts from History of Afghanistan

Wherever I go Tigeroo
Are you sure to follow
What should I make of this ?.

Your following me around from article to article Reminds me of a nursery rhyme

Mary had a little lamb,
Its fleece was white as snow;
And everywhere that Mary went,
The lamb was sure to go.

He followed her to school one day;
That was against the rule;
It made the children laugh and play;
To see a lamb at school.

And so the teacher turned it out,
But still it lingered near,
And waited patiently about
Till Mary did appear.

"Why does the lamb love Mary so?"
The eager children cry;
"Why, Mary loves the lamb, you know,"
The teacher did reply. ,

lol

Cheers Intothefire 07:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo are you now deleting my posts under 80.227.40.9

My posts on Qasim have been deleted by 80.227.40.9
and my posts on Mahmud of Ghazni have been deleted by 80.227.40.9 .
Please stop hounding and deleting my posts if you are 80.227.40.9

cheers Intothefire 09:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Qasim

Your post on my page .

"Btw, I had removed the Baladhuri comment which I believe prompted you talk about Baladhuris POV in the first place as unnecessary as well. So I hope that addresses the your concern of POV glorification. As an unrelated aside, all histories have a certain POV which is why wiki source prefer tertiary assessments to be quoted that would have hopefully removed the bias present in primary sources. Another reason why I felt the direct Baladhuri quotation initially present was inappropriate and possibly misleading.--Tigeroo 09:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)"


My response

Should I expect that what ever I post on Qasim
Even sourced from common references or sources you have used
You will remove it , undo it , hide it , suppress it
Provide fictitious rationalizations for it not being suitable to be on the page ?

Or are you going to surprise me with not adhering to your earlier pattern .

As I see it Neither you nor me are related to Qasim , Unless you feel a special affinity, Because if you do please let me know.

Cheers Intothefire 11:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

And now the Chach Nama

Hi tigeroo how have you been ?

Must be odious to be constantly tracking ,undoing ,re editing my posts .
Isent it interesting how the import of an entire paragraph can be radically altered with the addition of just one word . I added the word Arabic before book and you quickly removed it !! Was the book not Arabic ? Arabic is a great language than why the urgency to remove the word?

And then what is the reason for your reticence to leave the reference (of Sindh )from the Mahabharat in this article ? if when you look at the sources for the Arabic book Chach Nama in the article itself viz ( I had nothing to do with this before you start removing these now)
1. Arab historical lays, and ballads.
2. Family traditions of the Sakifís, recorded and unrecorded.
3. Stories told by individuals whose names were forthcoming.
4. Stories traceable to individuals of a certain caste, e.g., Brahmins.
5. Hearsay and apochryphal stories.
6. The correspondence between Muhammad Kásim and Hajjáj.

See the sources used as above mentioned -
lays and ballads , family traditions ,stories told , stories told by individuals of a certain caste eg Brahims (lol - I found the reference to the “vilification favorites “of Islamic angle histories – the Brahmins being considered for source in the Chach nama really incredible ),hearsay ,apochryphal stories .

Why do you feel such sources are good for the Chach nama to make it a History but not for the history of Sindh in the Mahabharat then?

Are you aware of any righteous people from among the immediate relations and contemporary Arabs but non Muslims even among the Prophets own lifetime? If you don’t I will provide you the names. This is relevant to the discussion on Kasim and Dahir and the Chach Nama

Incidentally have you read it ? Have you read any of the principle Hindu religious books? the Gita , or the Upinishads ? Have you read any of the opponent "sources" , because If you havent then you are going to be extremely handicaped in your discussions .

Lets discuss this on the talk page of the Chach nama Intothefire 17:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Your removal of my quotes from Raja Dahir

Tigeroo you keep removing my edits from the main page , even when the source I have used is the same as the one you have used like on the Dahir Page . I know why you do this and I find your discomfort funny because it reveals an insecurity .

On another point your quote
"First, the largely Buddhist population of Sind was unhappy with their Hindu rulers and their ethics of nonviolence inclined them to welcome the invaders.""

Look what the Chach Nama states itself about the distruction of the Buddhist temple to build a mosque . The ethics of violence and destruction of Qasim and his army are "unlikely to have inclined them (the non violent Buddhist ) to welcome the Invaders ...see the quote below .

"An account of the con­quest of Síwistán and some other places attached to it and the taking of the fort.
Muhammad Kásim then appointed a representative within the fort.
He (also) built a mosque in the place of the idol-temple of Budh,
and appointed a erier to call the people to prayer, and a priest (Imám) to be their guide in prayers and other religious matters.

So tigeroo whats your expert take on this one now ...?

CheersIntothefire 13:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Too bad

Just because Delhi s nihari , badam pasanda , ishtu , burra kabab , roomali roti , sheermal , naan ,Biryani , kakori kabab , are better by a mile than you would ever get anywhere in Pakistan , doesent mean you should be angry all the time . Intothefire 12:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad bin Qasim

Tigeroo thank you for repairing the link on Qasim .Your dedication to Qasim is touching . Guess what I found surprise surprise Jaweed Akhter it turns out is a Physician and not a Historian . See his description on his own website .

I hope conversely that articles in wikipedia on Medical Science are not quoting Dr s of History for proof . Or you think this is OK . A doctor is a Doctor ??? anything goes ???

"Javeed Akhter, a physician, is a founding member of the Chicago based Muslim American think tank International Strategy and Policy Institute and a member of the Chicago Committee of Human Rights Watch" .


"I was truly amused to read his comment on the website "Ramadan remains an uplifting experience, with the added bonus that during Taraweeh here in the U.S., unlike in India, I get to stand shoulder to shoulder with Muslims from many different ethnic backgrounds. " I wonder what the president of India Dr Kalam may have to say about standing shoulder to shoulder in India .

More amusing most of the articles on the site OF this so called Muslim think tank organization set up by him are written by himself . Problem he forgot to mention what he is a scholar of.

Tigeroo what are you going to do now . Fish out some new obscure wikipedia rule to protect this ..or as you normally do edit undo my posts .

Are all the other ref on the article same quality. You don’t like my ref or quotations from sources you use ...you remove them ...now you are happy repairing links to Physicians posting as scholars .



Cheers Intothefire 08:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)



In the article on QASIM which you aggressively guard ...
is there any particular reason for providing a bad link for quotes from sources
of the net .

If the provided link doesent work do you feel it is OK to cite it ?? see this one in the footnotes.

Do Muslims Deserve The Hatred Of Hindus? ref no 16 in the article .


Property destroyed during hostilities was compensated for.[2]


will you undo this post of mine as well .


Cheers ..



Image:300px-Ghaznevid.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:300px-Ghaznevid.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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.

Ghaznavids

I think the addition of the sentence regarding the Battle of Dandanaqan in the "Introduction" of the Ghaznavid article is inappropriate. First, the article starts by mentioning Apl-tigin (who was not even the real founder of Ghaznavid Empire, but it was his son Subuktagin) and goes suddenly to the Battle of Dandanaqan. If you really insist on having this sentence in the Introduction, while it is supposed to be very brief and short, then you have to mention all the important events took place from the time Sebuktigin founded the empire and until Shah Mahmood died. I am pretty sure, you have at least heard of the most important battles that Shah Mahmud Ghaznawi made in Southern Regions in Punjab and in former India. Some of those battles are way important and significant in the history of Ghaznavids than that of Dandanaqan.

Secondly, I agree that the Battle of Dandanaqan was a major threat to the Ghaznavids power in the region, but it does not indicate their decline as a power in the region. The Seljuks did not have an exact empire before the Battle of Dandanaqan, but after their success in the battle, they formed their Empire. In that battle, Ghaznavids lost only the western regions of their empire i.e. the regions today located in Khorasan Province of modern-day Iran (Nishapur, Tus, Mashhad, Damaghan, etc.) The Suljeks could hardly reach the Herat city (now in Afghanistan).

The decline of Ghaznavids is considered when they lost Ghazni (their capital) to the Ghorids, not before. If you claim that the decline of Ghaznavids was after the Battle of Dandanaqan, then please provide a reliable and scholarly source. Your claim even contradicts what is written in Masoud-nama or Tarikh-e Bayhaqi of Abul-Fazl Bayhaqi, written during the period of Shah Mahmoud and Shah Masoud. The Ghaznavids remained as the same great power during the period of Shah Masoud. So I will remove the history of Shah Masoud that you put under the section of "Decline".

Islam

Tigeroo, thank you for your productive changes on this article. the version i've recently restored is a compromise we worked out on the talk page, and for the most part it's pretty reasonable. your contributions to the history section are also good, but it's probably a good idea to suggest proposed changes/rewordings on talk first and see if they are agreed upon. the history section was previously actually quite large, and it took a lot of work to try trimming it down to keep the article around 85kb (reasonable for an introductory article) - so most of the editors aren't too keen on expanding the section if the information is non-critical (the info concerning hadith collections appears suitable). thanks.

Blocked for 3RR

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at Islam. Please be more careful to discuss controversial edits or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. The duration of the block is 24 hours. If you wish to request review of this decision, please email me or place {{unblock|reason here}} on this page.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "History section was restored after insertion of appropiate citations as that was the concern voiced for its removal. Note final restoration did not remove the disputed "conquered polytheists" section, in the end I left it in. Note that Jihad section rewrite is it self a response to slowdown of editings changes asked for. At each step I addressed the concerns voiced earlier, for sections where it was apparent that the changes were controversial I backed out and refrained from reverting those to avoid getting into an editing battle, I restored items that got reverted that were not in contention. If anything I am only guilty of excessively editing to address concerns raised by edit summaries in the reversions of edits."

Decline reason: "Provided no reason why your 3rr vio should be excused. Block stands — ViridaeTalk 13:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.