User talk:Mustafaa

The future of Islam

If you want to delete it, go ahead. I was trying to balance the claims of Muslim triumphalists and the "Islam is headed for the garbage can" folks. We've seen a tug of war in the article going on for many months between these folks and I thought that bringing it out into the open would help. But if you don't think it will suppress flames ... Zora 00:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by Urchid

User urchid and his possible sockpuppet 4.158.211.175 are doing nothing but committing vandalism of the encylopedia by inserting their hatred towards Islam (in Islam article and the discussion section). Perhaps you want to check this out and maybe push for protection of the Islam article. Anonymous editor 19:18, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary at this stage. Let's see what happens. - Mustafaa 19:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Please refrain from hijacking and vandalizing articles to spread islamist propaganda - anon.

Israeli terrorism

I've listed comprehensive reasons for my edits in talk before I removed anything. Please see talk. I wouldn't mind discussing this either. Zionist terrorism doesn't redirect, it is actually a duplicated article of Israeli terrorism. It also needs to be cleaned up. Regards,

Guy Montag 01:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We are waiting for your opinion in the discussion page on whether to move Israeli terrorism to State terrorism. Hope to hear from you soon.

Guy Montag 09:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nadooshan

He is well known nationally. They print memorial coverages in newspapers every year about him. I think it should be translated.--Zereshk 04:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Question re Arabic plural

Dear Mustafaa,

I recently ordered a old and expensive book on the geography of the Abbasid caliphate, in order to solve the nagging question about the derivation of Ahwaz or Suq al-Ahwaz. Southern Comfort and Zereshk were insisting that Ahwaz was a form of Khuz or Huz. That didn't seem plausible on the face of it, and they couldn't give any reason for it other than a quote from an Arab geographer writing five centuries later. Well, in 1905 a British professor, Le Strange, writes that "Ahwaz" is the Arabic plural form of Khuz. Since he was translating from Arab chroniclers, one assumes that he knew Arabic -- but I still find that assertion a little hard to believe. There seems to be only one sound in common between the two words, the z. I understand that Arabic forms plurals by changing the vowels inside a tri-consonantal root, or sometimes by adding an -in suffix, right? Is Le Strange's assertion reasonable?

If Ahwaz is indeed an Arabic plural form for Khuz, we may have been having this problem because none of the people involved know any Arabic.

BTW, I continue to have problems with the various Khuzestani and Elamite articles. That's all I'll say about it. I tried to involve you earlier, but you are busy, and I hate to call on you too often. I just wish somebody had responded to the two RFCs I posted. Zora 08:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Iranians go thru 7 years of Arabic in school, and one or two semesters in College. They know Arabic well enough. In fact modern Arabs know little about Sarf wa Nahw, whereas Iranians are mandatorily trained in that area (i.e. "Classical Arabic").
I find it unfortunate that after providing literally a mountain of evidence, Zora still insists on the "Arabic root of Ahvaz". If that is not ignorance and bigotry, then what is?--Zereshk 08:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic politics

Responded to your comment on Talk:Ethnic politics of Khuzestan. I suggest presenting both POV's (as regards the foundation of the emirate). Obviously there were differences between the rule of Jabir and Khaz'al, and I do not wish to argue over definitions of what constitutes an 'emirate' and whether Jabir was an emir so forth, as both POV's are well documented. What do you think? By the way, it would be appreciated if you could add any additional info to Msha'sha'iya. Kasravi also wrote a wonderful book about them, however it will take me some time to get ahold of it. SouthernComfort 21:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into it. I don't know much about the issue, but fortunately alwaraq.com has a very good library... - Mustafaa 21:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would appreciate whatever help you could provide, as my Arabic isn't all that great, thus limiting me to primarily Persian language sources. Though I have a number of Khuzestani Arab friends in Iran who have expertise in this subject and will be helping me gather and translate as many sources as we can find. Zora has continually attacked me as a racist (!) and anti-Arab bigot, and considering my Khuzestani background (and I have many Iranian Arab relatives and friends) and my attempt to provide an accurate portrait of Khuzestani Arab history and current reality, it's becoming very frustrating and offensive. You seem to be very NPOV and whatever assistance you could provide would be great. SouthernComfort 22:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey there -- could I ask you to take a look at my recent edits on Terrorism?

I fixed the balanced-example problem people claimed to be concerned about, but POV editors are massing the troops. Could I ask you to take a look and add your thoughts to the discussion? BrandonYusufToropov 01:46, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Muhammereh

Is Muhammereh the correct Arabic transliteration, or is it Muhammerah? In Khuzestan I've always heard it referred in the former sense. The most common form on the Internet is Mohammerah, which I think is the Persian form. I'm also curious about the meaning. Thanks. SouthernComfort 05:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tunisia, again (day or night)

Hey, Mustafaa. I inadvertantly noticed that someone has placed an historical overview narrative in the lead paragraph. I restored the original lead, moved it to the history preview section and integrated with what was there, wikified, etc. Perhaps you could take a glance at it and make sure everything is (historically and chronologically) in order. I edited it somewhat in haste. All the best, El_C 23:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problem. - Mustafaa 00:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Mustafaa. El_C 08:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for contributions to Khuzestani articles and also for your recent edit in Qur'an, on literary Arabic. Says it perfectly and should prevent future problems with educated Arabic-speakers not understanding section re language of Qur'an. Zora 02:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personal Attacks/vandalism by anon IPs (217.123.137.115 and many more) or likely enviroknot

A user using anonymous IPs (most likely enviroknot) has been making personal attacks against me with the IP address in both the Saudi Arabia and Jihad articles. See edit history.

He also seems to have a problem with my conversion to Islam as he posted this on my user page: As a former Muslim, I understand you feel the need to defend Islam.However, it is completely indefensible. Please be advised that I will oppose you at EVERY turn because my eyes have been opened and the mysoginistic goals of the false prophet Mohammed (piss be upon him) must be opposed at every turn, for the good of the world and for the good of all women who would be free of the slavery that is Islam.

I request that you take the appropriate measures to stop this user's and also his persistent vandalism of article and talk pages. He has used the exact same wording and tactics as enviroknot so he is probably just another sockpuppet of enviroknot.Thank you for your help.--Anonymous editor 02:55, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Afrocentrism

Hi Mustafaa, I just want to say that I welcome your contributions to the Afrocentrism page. Deecee is, I find, very difficult to argue with because of her highly entrenched views. But I hope you will persist in helping us to sort out the most appropriate and useful terminology for North African peoples. The problem is, I feel, that discussion of race is so riddled with confusing and contradictory terminology that it's very difficult to find terms that can command a consensus. I feel that Deecee, like other some other Amercians I've discussed this with tends to assume that the very idiosycratic ideas about race prevelant in America are universally held worldwide, or that if they aren't that's because everyone else hasn't caught up yet! Paul B 13:24 14 June, 2005 (UTC)

Request for help

I was blocked earlier today by User:Inter, apparently for reverting the talk page for this IP, which, as I explained to everyone else at the time, was done because this IP is shared by thousands of people as an university proxy.

As you can see from the history (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:137.205.192.27&action=history), User:DJ Clayworth is in clear violation of the 3RR rule, also here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&action=history) where User:Sjakkalle joins in the edit war.

I understand that I may also have been in violation, but the policy states that "In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally.", which Inter clearly did not.

It may be claimed that their reverts did not count, because they were reverting vandalism, but in fact, this only applies to Wikipedia:Simple vandalism and my edits did not fall into that category, though I was accused of vandalism by DC Clayworth and others, which goes against Wikipedia:No personal attacks. In the case of Sjakkalle, my request that a comment be referenced was repeatedly ignored, he kept on reverting, claiming "vandalism" and then gave up. --137.205.192.27 18:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This anonymous user has been putting in "alleged" all over holocaust related articles, implying that the facts in the article are pure speculation. Inserting misinformation in an article does constitute vandalism. I doubt also that the anon in question is a newbie, because he has been sending 3RR warnings to the users he has warred with. I would like to assume good faith, but here I think that the user in question is deliberately trying to coax other users into running afoul of the 3RR. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In fact, I put alleged in ONE place, relating to Hitler. Your above statement is implies that I was denying the holocaust, when in fact I did not dispute the holocaust, but rather pointed out the ambiguity in the main cause of it. This is not misinformation, it was an attempt at NPOV, admittedly perhaps not a very good one. Either way, it does not constitute simple vandalism, revertion of which is exempt from the 3RR rule. Also, your main revert warring was when I removed an unverifiable, irrelevant and unreferenced claim from a holocaust article. Despite my requests for a citation and explanations of why I had done the edit, you continuously reverted, either with no explanation, or claiming "vandalism" and "bias", which are personal attacks. I also did not send "3RR warnings", I pointed out ONCE to DJ Clayworth that he was close to infringing the 3RR rule, and I did not "war" with anyone, i was trying to NPOV an article- it seems you were the one with war in mind. Besides that, even if I were trying to "coax" users into 3RR violation, admins of all people should be able to avoid getting drawn in and take appropriate action. --137.205.192.27

For a highly sensitive topic such as the Holocaust, I strongly urge you to attempt to discuss any edits in detail on the talk page first. You're clearly not new to Wikipedia, so you may have come across this principle before; if not, it will save you and others many headaches. - Mustafaa 19:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for a clear headed response, finally. In future I shall do as you say. I still think the others behaved badly.. but nevermind. --137.205.192.27 20:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Palestine portal

As soon as I started editing it Mr. Humus Sapiens started removing the in the news section because he thinks it's too "anti-Israel". This is amazing, even a portal is not free of POV-pushing.Yuber^(talk) 05:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: block

There isn't one. I blocked him for 2 hours for him to calm down. Blanking a page, especially when its a talk page full of evidence of past vandalism, isn't a good thing. That was my reason for the short block. If he wishes to complain about it, I'd suggest he take it up with me directly, but as he was a vandal, complaining to somebody else about it sounds like a viable option for him. Thanks for your inquiry. Inter\^Echo 07:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reason I complained to "someone else" was so that a 3rd party who was not involved in the dispute could mediate. Also I think your previous behaviour was unjust, so why would you respond justly to my complaint. You have also called me a vandal again, which is yet another violation of WP:NPA, please stop. Also the talk page has no evidence of vandalism, merely accusations, which I strongly dispute. And why did you only block me, the policy is ""In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally." --137.205.192.27 10:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VfD

Thought you might want to vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Blackcats 09:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jaffa

We seem to be disputed over the definition of the link. Is it a Propoganda (If I missppell this word I'll be happy to learn the correct spelling) site or not. As the site gives a very Narrow and one sided version of the citie's history, and claims that it is under occupation, it is a propoganda site. I am willing to accept the term occupation regarding the "Territories" occupied in 1967. Jaffa, however is a part of the state of Israel as recognized by the UN in 1947. If this link is to remain in the article at least we can warn about the nature of the site it links to. Can we come to a civilized agreement? All I want is a NPOV good article. I have contributed the picture I took in Jaffa of the Jaffa port and I really care for this article. Almog 21:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for replying in my talk page. Please see my comment in the Jaffa talk page. Almog 05:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abraham

Here's Noitall again, now he's claiming that Christianity doesn't view Abraham as the ancestor of the Arabs.Yuber^(talk) 23:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Elamite Empire

Hi. I was about to leave a comment on Zereshk's talk when I noticed your comments and I would like to say something. I completely understand where you are coming from, but Zora is the one who is attempting to create controversy here. Originally there were only two quotes in the article, at the top of the page. Two quotes, both of which are relevant to the article in question. Neither quote says anything about the ethnic character of the Elamites. She originally deleted them (as well as the sentence contributed by Emilyzilch) based upon her false accusation that I (and Zereshk) had claimed the Elamites were Persian. Now, there is nothing wrong with including relevant quotes in an article, and it's one thing to move those quotes to somewhere more appropriate in the article, but to delete them outright and then to attempt to politicize the article by bringing in this idea of "histiography and nationalism" and calling historians (all non-Iranian at that) "nationalist" - this is totally against the spirit of WP and considering your opinion on the matter, I do not believe you would condone such acts.

But it's important to make clear that Zora is the one attempting to transform the article into a political battleground and she made similar claims about there being "controversy" over the name Ahvaz (in reality, there being no controversy). IMHO, if she wants to counter what is already in the article (i.e. providing POV's from opposing scholars) and no one else has any opposition to this, then that's something. But to delete relevant and legitimate information and to declare her intention to "completely" rewrite the article is not only disruptive and against the spirit of WP, but provokes edit war. It's not right and again, I do not believe that you condone this sort of disruptive behavior. But her behavior (and her history of antagonizing both Zereshk and myself) should be recognized for what it is. SouthernComfort 12:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor has been kind enough to nominate me for an adminship

...which I think will go a long way toward resolving unproductive disputes pages he and I both edit. Anyone who is interested in voting one way or the other is invited to the discussion here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BrandonYusufToropov#.5B.5BUser:BrandonYusufToropov.5D.5D). BrandonYusufToropov 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jihad article

Same problems again after article has been unprotected. Anon IPs/enviroknot persist certain disputed sections should be added. See edit history. Call to re-protect. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 00:04, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Lebanese

I thought using the word "variety" was more NPOV as you had said before in another article, so that's why I changed dialect to variety.Yuber^(talk) 00:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In general I agree, but when there's a relatively high-profile debate as here, I think it's better to mention both sides. - Mustafaa 00:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Afrocentrism

Thank you for your help. - Mustafaa 02:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All in the line of duty. Kelly Martin 02:24, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples

Look at Category talk:Indigenous peoples for some background. I had the same primary reaction but I thought CJJLWright's arguments were pretty convincing. I'd be curious to know your thoughts. — mark ✎ 07:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa, I have also responded at Talk:Tuareg with a rather too long dissertation, and included the external references I used in associating Tuareg with the indigenous category. Let me know what you think, thanks. --cjllw | TALK 09:06, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

User:Yuber at State of Palestine

Mustafaa, I'm at a loss as to how to deal with User:Yuber; his preferred method of editing seems to be inserting his own POV into articles, or deleting information he doesn't like, and then revert warring. His latest edits at State of Palestine appear to me to be POV and inaccurate, and remove simple facts. I suspect he might respect any comments or edits you might make; would you be willing to take a look? Regards, 20:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BrandonYusufToropov's rfa

I saw that you voted yes and I was curious about what you thought. I have found that he is sometimes oriented towards a strong Sunni view. Do you see this or... I'm just curious. It seemed to me that such a demeanor (which could have gotten better) and not that many edits (nor that many of great size) and the circumstances of an rfa from an argument seemed a little odd... I typically trust your opinion, so I more or less want to know why you voted the way you did. gren 01:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Mustafaa"