User talk:ProtectWomen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome

Hello ProtectWomen! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting help Frequently asked questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Building consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

[edit] Women in Islam

Those articles are atrocious. Unfortunately, some wikipedians have taken fringe scholars such as Ghamidi - whose version of Islam is so heterodox that the government of Pakistan provides him with bodyguards - and portrayed their version of Islam as the truth. If you want to make these articles reflect the truth I can give you some suggestions. Arrow740 23:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Islamic socialism

You have edited the article Islamic socialism. This article is currently being considered for deletion under the wp:afd process. You may contribute to this discussion by commenting here. Thank you. Edivorce 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Islamophobia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, apparently you have me confused with someone else- I received no 1st warning. Also, you did not read my justification on the talk page for the edits before you brazenly reverted them. This warning you placed on my talk page should be considered a vandalism itself.ProtectWomen 08:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hijab female with laundry basket.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] Islamophobia comment

I understand that you were just trying to give a compliment and that in itself is admirable. It's just that I've seen the Islamophobia talk page descend into mud throwing so many times that any meaningful collaboration becomes impossible. But perhaps I was being a little too sensative, in which case I apologise. Also, have you read Infidel (book)? I need to expand the sysnopsis section, perhaps you'd care to help. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2007-03-6 12:03

No problem, mate! Unfortunately I have not had the chance to read her book although I am familiar with who she is and have the utmost respect for her. I am a bit jealous that you have read the book and not I  :-) ProtectWomen 19:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As a Dutchman I've been very much aware of her (I've had dinner with her and corresponded with her numerous times through email) for a long time. I definitely recommend the book to you: there are some excerpts linked from the article that you might want to read. JACOPLANE • 2007-03-6 22:45

[edit] Faggot (epithet)

Your edit to Faggot (epithet) hasn't really addressed the issue (though I like your wording better than what was there, and you're more informative); rather, it's just re-ordered the statements. It's clear to me that there is a strong possibility that Coulter was making a reference to the popular culture incident when she very nearly called Edwards a "faggot". However, to cite the two events sequentially, leads the reader to believe that the citations we give will back up the implied connection between the events. They don't, and that was my concern. What I'd really like is to find a reference that says that Coulter was referencing the popular culture event. There must be someone in a reasonably respected publication who did this, no? -Harmil 13:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ALM and ItaqAllah

Thank you very much for mentioning this to me. They seems really desperate to get rid of me, and considering the biased editing these two particular editors has been involved in and still is involved in, I must say that I am not surprised. I am not too worried about these attempts though. There is no way that they will ever be successful. -- Karl Meier 10:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I thought I would also mention that I have appreciate your participation on the "Islamophobia" article. That article has desperately needed some attention from constructive editors that edit according to policy, and now I believe it seems to be in much better shape than before. -- Karl Meier 10:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism templates

Please don't so liberally use the vandalism templates. They are meant for specific acts of deliberate and clear vandalism. The situation on Islamophobia is not vandalism but an edit war that needs to be solved through discussion :O gren グレン 20:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page Criticism of Islam do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. RJASE1 ^Talk 05:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I already discussed the addition of the links on the talk page.... please replyProtectWomen 06:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

You have already passed 3rr rule. Please note that. --Aminz 06:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad/images

Greetings, your editing on this contentious area is a bit hard to understand when you've not been involved in the image discussions save for one vote surrounding how the images are going to be laid out. Such editing is rather disruptive given the enormous talk surrounding the issue of image display. If I understand what I know of you you take issue with Islam's treatment of women and I completely understand that and in fact I tend to support that as I edit the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article (including uploading this image for it). I respectfully request that you kindly refrain from further reverting and join the talk about these issues. Thanks. (→Netscott) 20:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point--ProtectWomen 21:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking my request to heart and joining the discussion. (→Netscott) 21:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, but regarding my last revert: I can see by your user page and the fake message banner that you have a sense of humor; perhaps a practical joker? I wasn't sure if you were likewise being silly on the Muhammad/images revert. You made it into your version and then asked everyone to stop making reverts until there was a consensus, meanwhile, the page sits the way you prefer it. I giggled at first, but wasn't sure if you were intending a joke? --ProtectWomen 21:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes! I do have a sense of humor but I wasn't joking in my last revert. Like User:Tom harrison was essentially agreeing to in view of User:BrandonYusufToropov's logic there is no real reason to needlessly antagonize Muslims by prominently displaying an image of Muhammad at the lead of the article if a more clever way of conveying the message can be employed. I sincerely hope that we can come to an genuine consensus on this issue and that the reverting and other disruption that has surrounded this whole issue can come to a close. I will grant you that if the general consensus is established that a no holds barred image of Muhammad is to be displayed at the lead of the article then I will not further belabor the issue. (→Netscott) 21:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In view of my explanation here would you kindly self-revert? (→Netscott) 21:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also you may want to read this talk. (→Netscott) 21:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that comment. I will hold off editing that page for now  :) --ProtectWomen 21:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then you won't revert me if I re-establish the original version? Is that what you mean by you'll hold off? (→Netscott) 22:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The only question for me is the placement, I don't have an issue with the reference. Hold off means ... a day or two? --ProtectWomen 22:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Other than [Personal Attack Removed], prior to yesterday the image positions have remained stable. It is a bit surprising to me to see editors who don't display such [Personal Attack Removed] characteristics further his disruptive editing by revert warring against this previously stable image arrangement. I respect User:Beit Or who actually has added to the reference and thereby enhanced the content but others who just blindly revert ,it is difficult to understand. Perhaps you don't care about Muslims folks no matter who they might happen to be[Personal Attack Removed] (terroristic or peaceful) and so regardless you will edit accordingly. Your restoring of the link to the hatesite "Prophet of Doom" would seem indicative of this but given what I know about you I think perhaps you are someone who is just caught up in the situation and will blindly support those who are making hateful demonstrations[Personal Attack Removed] relative to Islam (and you just don't consider your action deeply enough). If that is not the case then I would hope that you be a bit more moderated in your Islam related editing. (→Netscott) 22:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Netscott! While I wholeheartedly support your right to disagree with other users here, I would appreciate if in the future, you have a disagreement with one (be it non-muslim, muslim or whatever) that you please not use my talk page as a platform or battleground to further your attack. I have seen the user's edits, but never have had any direct interaction with the above stated user. Consider me Switzerland here. Please take your issues with other users to the admins or to the users themselves.

Also, I have to say I was extremely offended by your comment "Perhaps you don't care about Muslims" and that I am "perhaps someone [who would] blindly support those who are making hateful demonstrations relative to Islam".

Very offended.

I care deeply about Muslims, that is why I make edits to so many Islamic topics.

Also, I never stated my position about "The Prophet of Doom" website, but to be honest, I think he is too critical of Muslims. But that is besides the point. The article is about "Criticism of Islam" ... the section in question is "Directories of sites critical of Islam". Please note that the link is only that and nothing more. A link. The Prophet of Doom is not claimed to be a primary source for the article. Anyone in the public (i.e. non-editors of Wikipedia) who found themselves on that page would likely be interested in what the criticism of Islam was. The directory of sites critical of Islam is not an endorsement of those sites, but a small list of prominent sites presenting arguments critical of Islam. Arguments could be made that ANY of the sites in the Critical Sites AND the Muslim Responses sites listings were "hate sites". That's not a judgment for us to make. It is our responsibility to neutrally provide the information and let people decide for themselves. ProtectWomen 05:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The range will never be blocked - unless the blocking person wants to block millions of people. 72.88.190.196 19:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So you think you're all powerful hiding behind an IP address? Can you please stop your online Terrorism? --Matt57 23:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• This Wiki-Warrior was undoubtedly replying to my edit here --ProtectWomen 23:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hi ProtectWomen, after we get some more attacks from this user, we can try to file for a [Check user and hopefully it will reveal the username. As you probably found out, the people from the "other team" are not friendly towards us and they specially try to hammer down on newcomers. I hope you dont let that get to you. Some people here are bullies and they need an iron hand. If you look at the history of the topics we are interested in, the topics always start out with a lot of censorship from these people but that is eventually overcome. All these people can do is slow down the spread of information but they can never stop it as they hope to. I like your nick. This is one thing which is needed a lot, more power to women. To the anonymous vandal who's reading this, please vandalize as much as you can. Its good for the cause. Bring it on. --Matt57 03:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Matt, I can tell you are a great person with lots of spirit. While I was gone for a few days, it looks like they figured out who this person is? Somebody named HisExcellency who is apparently a permanently banned user? At least the admins are here to help us out, otherwise this person would be extremely disruptive. --ProtectWomen 08:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are other users who agree that my commentary was inappropriate then I'll be inclined to apologize but to be perfectly honest with you I don't see how they were. They were a bit harsh but not inappropriate in my opinion. (→Netscott) 17:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

ProtectWomen, thanks, ah I see. His Excellency is another sock puppet of the previously banned vandal Shams2006. I'm glad they found out. I had suspected it was either him or BhaiSaab. --Matt57 18:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to solicit the thoughts of others on this matter, they are free to comment if they happen upon this. However, I would ask you in the future to please be careful about talking about "hate" as if you are against it, when you engage in it yourself. Thanks. (Remember the hand that points a finger has 3 fingers pointing straight back and the 5th finger pointing in another direction altogether) --ProtectWomen 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I refute your allegation that I've expressed hate as it is total nonsense. Again, there were no personal attacks here. I've described the actions and aspects of individuals, not the individuals themselves. ie: I've never said something to the effect that ProtectWomen and TharkunColl are anti-Muslim bigots, etc. There is a very significant difference. (→Netscott) 18:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This denial of personal attacks looks more like a personal attack than any of the statements which preceded it. It might be wise to discontinue this conversation, which looks increasingly irrelevant to the encyclopedia, in favor of more productive endeavors.Proabivouac 18:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a hypothetical. Seriously people... can we apply some logic here? (→Netscott) 18:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I must agree that imputations of hate and hatefulness are generally unhelpful, and should be avoided in the absence of very strong evidence.Proabivouac 18:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please! Enough with the Personal Attacks already! Please, no more comments on this subject. It is deteriorating rapidly and I'm not in the mood to be insulted repeatedly. Seriously, let's drop it and let's get back to editing an encyclopedia. --ProtectWomen 18:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:72.88.165.163

I am pressing Netscott to do a CheckUser to help see who is behind this IP. I hope it can be done and then we can find out who this Vandal is. --Matt57 22:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, we will get this online jihadi's activity stopped. --Matt57 22:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:USER

Hi ProtectWomen,
Another editor has expressed concern about the use of your user page for social and political commentary. For better or for worse (I'd say worse,) some degree of this is allowed, but some of this crosses the line into the arguably inflammatory: the title "Who are these men trying to emulate?" is not particularly subtle, and the link behind "How do you feel about women?" is inappropriate for user space. I'd appreciate it if you would do your part to improve the atmosphere in this space by correcting the problem.Proabivouac 00:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As it appears that you've not been logged on, I've done it for you. Steering clear of potentially inflammatory commentary will help us all get along, and avoid further problems in this respect. Thanks for your understanding.Proabivouac 00:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac,

Thank you for your help. As you can see, I am a new user and still wet behind the ears so to speak. Certain things in this world are particularly offensive to me, and it's a little shocking that there are people around here who might have been offended by my user page as it was. Well, I'm not here to cause trouble at Wikipedia- I'm just a passionate person and feel that awareness needs to be raised about certain issues.

Again, thank you for looking out for me as I was unable to log in for a couple days ♥--ProtectWomen 08:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• ProtectWomen, i know you won't bite, i simply thought i would ask for the opinion of a user experienced in this area, which is what i did. as long as we can discuss in a civil and detached manner, then i think we'll get along just fine. ITAQALLAH 18:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't think of it in that way, that Proabivouac had more experience in this arena, but I see your point. However, I think it is a better measure of good faith (in general terms) to approach the individual directly on that user's talk page with any problem. Then if input from a third party is desired - ask them to join the discussion on the talk page of the user in question, instead of on the third party's user page. Thank you for getting back to me on this, I look forward to more interaction with you in the future. --ProtectWomen 18:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

sure, apologies for not contacting you directly about this. ITAQALLAH 18:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank u! ~♥~ProtectWomen 18:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and slavery lead

Dear interested editor:
Please visit here: [1] in the next few days and give your vote and your proposals on how the lead may be reworked and reformed to meet GA criteria before next nomination.DavidYork71 04:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Islam

Hi ProtectWomen! I noticed your revert of my contextual (neutral) contribution. Since I am new on this English version of the subject (I contributed to the Dutch version) I am wondering what stance this action was designed to protect. Rokus01 01:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9 year old is still a child

Hello, I wonder whether that sentence on your userpage is a reference to Muhammad? Regards, NN 10:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am only pointing out that any sexual activity that adults engage in with children constitutes sexual abuse (at the least) or rape (probably more accurate). Consequently, a 9 year old happens to be a child. As for M-? That is up to the interpretation of anyone coming to my userpage. I will not mention that name on my userpage for any reason --ProtectWomen 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consent to Sex of Women Captives

Hello, I think consent of the woman to sex is an important issue. The Koran says it is okay for a man to have sex with his woman slave. It however does not say he requires her consent. Accordingly I have added the following text to some articles:

There is no mention of requiring consent of the female in the Koran [2]

Do you think the above text is appropriate by Wiki standards?

Regards,

NN 05:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I appreciate. Regards, NN 18:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

A lot for the barnstar. Arrow740 01:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)