User talk:Yosri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~

Dersonlwd Talk 11:41, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dear Yosri:

Regarding the page Aztecs, the name "Tlacalel" is a misspelling for "Tlacaelel". Please take this into account for your Bahasa Melayu page.

I will be glad to help you further on this or other things related to Mexico.

Greetings.

Trujaman 04:29, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Vasco da Gama

An article that you've edited before (Vasco da Gama) is nominated for Article Improvement Drive. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 02:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:gfdl

[edit] Gratitude

Thankyou so much Yosri for your brilliant translation effort!

I am very grateful.

May you prosper!

(If you ever need any articles to be translated to the Chinese or Taiwanese language, then I would gladly help you).

Best Wishes, from --Jose77 23:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halal Article

I recently saw your addition to the Halal article. I believe using the "urine argument" in the article is inappropriate for various reasons:

A. I cannot find any verifable and reputable source which mentions your argument (aka no citation). This leads me to believe that perhaps it is an argument you have created on your own (WP Policy: No Original Research).
B. The parallel to urine is implicitly stating that the urine is haram, which again needs a citation if the assertion is true
C. And if it the assertion is true that urine is haram, it is assuming prior reader knowledge of that.

For these reasons, I find your 'urine argument" addition to the halal article inappropriate and am reverting your changes. If you would like to reinsert the statement, please first find a source which mentions that urine is haram, and also find a source which mentions the argument itself. No hard feelings.Starwarp2k2 22:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You bring up a valid argument. I urge you to find a source for this statement you wrote on my talk page, it brings up a very salient point- "What is not seen is not totally gone" and then include that and it's source in the Halal article in a NPOV fashion. Thanks for not taking my revert personally.Starwarp2k2 16:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
"What is not seen is not totally gone" is common logic and fairly obvious. But in wikipedia, you cannot use assume the reader follows your/any logic. Following that train of thought, you have to quote a source that uses/explains this logic and say "look! that is what this theory says" etc...
And about your comment regarding the type of halal which doesn't require the ritual slaughtering but just requires recitation prior to consumption, there are definately people who follow that. I have sourced that statement on the Halal page.Starwarp2k2 17:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying my friend, but your opinion (nor my opinion) regardless of how valid or invalid, cannot be passed on to a wikipedia article. Each definition of halal which a significant constituency adheres to must be present in the wikipedia article. It cannot be removed just because me or you or another website doen't agree with it, because someone else does agree.Starwarp2k2 15:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I hate to repeat myself but you leave me with no option. Wikipedia's job is not to figure out which viewpoint is right, but rather to list ALL the significant ones and neutrally write what they have to say about each other.Starwarp2k2 05:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand your skepticism fully. I myself am very skeptical on which sources I use. The site which I included no longer works, so I included another different citation. It is not a state-sponsored website, but it is still credible. It is a website which echoes the distinction between "zabiha" and "halal, essentially the argument which we are referring to. Read commentary for 179. Not only does this website say what I wrote on the article, I also personally know many people who follow that definition of halal.Starwarp2k2 03:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The source was removed from the article. I am talking with the person who removed it. [[1]].Starwarp2k2 16:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
We're going in circles. Just because you don't beleive it doesn't mean alot of other people don't beleive it. And if they do, it needs to be mentioned in wikipedia.Starwarp2k2 19:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
We should definately talk about Islamic law and what Islam says is "halal", but there are differing opinions on Islamic law and what Islam deems as halal.Starwarp2k2 16:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
What you consider to be Islamic Law is not necessarily the same as what everyone else considers to be Islamic Law. If a significant group beleive a certain thing (as they do), than it must be mentioned in the article.Starwarp2k2 19:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not know of the specifics regarding what the four madhabs of Sunni Islam say, but please stop generalizing. All Muslims don't strictly follow any one of the four madhabs, and have their own beleifs. And there is a significant number of people, especially in non-Muslim-majority countries, who follow the various types of halals that are currently in the article and that warrants their mention in the article. I am not referring to a radical view, I am referring to a view that is accepted by a large quantity of people. What is large? I don't know...and the chances of being able to assign/find a number to "large" are very slim.Starwarp2k2 01:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not generalizing by saying that "Muslims beleive this". I wrote "Some" beleive this. I used that terminology because people from all divisions of Islam can hold this opinion. The opinion is not restricted to any single school of thought, thus the word "some".Starwarp2k2 16:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Great!Starwarp2k2 13:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peace be upon him (Islam)

Yosri, I noticed you did some work on the Peace be upon him article a long time back. I was hoping you could look into the article now. People are saying some strange things that no one uses sallallahu alayhi wa salaam for the Prophet anymore but instead use subhanahu wa ta'ala. Moreover, they are saying that mentioning the Prophet also entails sending salaah upon his family. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. ZaydHammoudeh 18:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Danish boycott, on your userpage

Out of curiosity, why are you boycotting Danish products and, by extension, Denmark, though your condemnation extends only to a particular newspaper that happens to be Danish? Specifically, what do other businesses in Denmark (some of which have opposed that publication, and some of which have no idea about that publication) have to do with that article published by one newspaper? IgorSF 10:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, this is merely personal curiosity. Having heard the "boycott Danish" rhetorics from many different sources, I'm intrigued by the reasoning behind it. However, if you object to this post, and want it removed, I'll do that upon your request, or feel free to remove it yourself if you wish.IgorSF 10:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There was never any apology for the above said incident and the incident was precalculated to insure Muslim wrath (They want to know how much reaction it will attract. - ‘‘its carry death penalty”). Danish government only apologies that some people felt hurt by it. This is not full apology, indicating they (the government) approve it. To purchase is, therefore to compromised one’s own faith. Yosri 06:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I understand this reasoning, but still feel somewhat puzzled by it. I would understand it much better if it was the case that Danish government had any influence on the newspaper in question. While I haven't studied either that incident or Danish political system in any detail, I assume that - as in most Western democracies - in Denmark, the government has little or no influence on that newspaper. So even if they wanted to shut it down for the publication, or otherwise punish it, they simply can't. Moreover, they - the government - may not feel like they owe any apology because they - the government - didn't do anything. The newspaper did, and the newspaper may be seen by some as owing an apology to Muslims - a view that, although controversial, is much easier to understand. But the government, lacking control or influence on the newspaper, and having done nothing to cause the publication, nor having the power to do anything to undo its effects, may genuinely be seen as having no cause for an apology. IgorSF 09:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, as I understand, your boycott extends to all businesses operating in the country, which includes a great number of companies with widely different views. Some of them have no doubt supported the publications, while other were neutral (and some, no doubt, didn't even know or care), and still others share your disgust for the publication. Moreover, certainly in a country as big as Denmark, there are businesses owned by Muslims, whose feelings about the publication, in all likelihood, are as strong as, or even stronger than, yours. But those businesses are also affected by the boycott. IgorSF 09:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Because the issue is so controversial, and the potential for misunderstanding is likewise very high, I'd like to reaffirm what was stated above - these messages are arising from personal curiosity, and carry no bad will. Nor is this curiosity limited to the reactions of Muslims and Islam, either; a very similar event (a particular entity has made a particular decision, and many people, in great anger, decided to boycott not only that entity, but all businesses in the same geographical area) occurred several years ago in the USA. IgorSF 09:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I see. I guess that explains the reaction toward the government of Denmark, but I still don't see the basis for such reaction against the private companies in Denmark, although one can make the argument that the citizens of a country elect its government, and as such, are responsible for its decisions. In any case, thanks for the reply. IgorSF 11:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, it's me! Wow, it seems that you're still angry towards those cartoons, so you still don't change to something else... right? --Edmund the King of the Woods! 16:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


It is not the question of emotional. I don't change my principal just to please others. They have their principal, I keep mine. Yosri 06:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean changing your principal, but editing your own userpage here. I see your userpage here is all about the cartoon controversy. Btw I saw an InterWiki link on top of your userpage here, linking to an image you've uploaded in the Malay Wikipedia. Do you mean to put that link in the lower left side of the interface? If you want the link to appear within the content of the page, it should be

ms:Imej:YosriBolaTakraw.jpg

Wonder whether you really know how to make InterWiki links... :-P --Edmund the King of the Woods! 10:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)