User talk:RiskAficionado/Archive 14

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for a fourth opinion

Hello, I see that you have been editing some articles related to muslim organizations. (I must admit that I chose you rather randomly...) Can I be bold and ask you for your opinion on the article Islamic_Cultural_Centre_of_Ireland? There is a controversy whether the organizations in the ICCI should be included in the article. Your opinion would be really appreciated and might prevent tiresome edit-warring. Thank you. --Shengyi (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've posted some of my thoughts on the talk page. ITAQALLAH 23:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Islam Sentiment Category

I have responded to your comments on Category_talk:Anti-Islam_sentiment Even our page for Anti-Islam acknowledges that anti-islam can refer to a few separate things, so using that category exclusively for bigotry against Islam is wrong. Jwray (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on the category talk page. ITAQALLAH 06:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zakir Naik

This article is still disputed. Several sections of this article added by ISKapoo, Vikramsingh were regularly removed/censored by you and others. This article is still in dispute, please do not remove the tag until all the disputes involving this article are resolved. If you wish to know what is in dispute read the talk page. You will find a very long discussion there are realize that the recent inactivity was due to several persons (including ISKapoo & Vikramsingh) giving up any hope of maintaining a balanced viewpoint due to the constant censorship by you and others. - Agnistus (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still disputed by yourself and other editors who clearly haven't bothered to read through WP:BLP which thoroughly undermines your pointish and negative focus on those views of Naik you personally deem require coverage. Until you make specific - and not vague - references to policy, I can't take your argument for inclusion seriously. ITAQALLAH 13:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your resonse to "Pink Princess"

My response to Pink Princess:

Where have I said that forced conversions to Islam have occured en masse? I have said that Assyrians have been persecuted and that Timur-i-lenga was a great persecutor but then again he persecuted anything that moved. The only place I know of for sure where conversion occured forcibly during a certain period of time (not all the tim) was in Coptic Egypt when the Jizya tax was raised extortionately high for a period of time. Anyways, it is a fact that religious freedom is less in the Middle East than in the West, especially in Saudi Arabia and in Egyot where it takes 30 years of planning permission to build a Church. But this has nothing to do with my contribution to the Islamic article and I have never even mentioned this in the Islamic article, why is it being mentioned, to discredit me? What has this go to do with anything?

My response to you:

Pink Princess, as his foolish username suggests, is under a fantasy that Religions in the Middle East have always, 100% of the time lived in peace. I really don't give a damn for now, all I said in the Islam article page was the Jihad section was fair, and that it was used to expand the Islamic state in Spain, Byzantium etc. Where did I say that Islam forced mass conversions, except for a brief period of time in Egypt following its conquest? Recently in Iraq conversions and persecutions have increased due to the chaotic nature of the Iraqi government failing to provide any security, but this has nothing to do with the article, can we ignore Pink Princess attacks and move on?Tourskin (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it was my bad

I agree, I might have been a bit uncivil. I'll try be more so.

Take care. Pink Princess (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic view of anal sex

Can you plz take a look here, seems like another stupid atack. Author is giving ambigious text images in Urdu, & no proof in Arabic at all. Wassalamualikum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farhansher (talk • contribs)

Stay away from anal sex, it makes you do crazy things !!!!

Just stay away from it --Phalanx Pursos 09:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User page vandalism

You, me, and another brother recently got hit with some pretty bizarre vandalism from the same guy. Is there anybody we've all mutually pissed off or something? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... he sure has a strange way of showing his admiration. ^_^ ITAQALLAH 22:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tawhid:Interpretations

Salam, I've added different interpretations about Tawhid and add something about Athari, Mu'tazili, Ash'ari and the others viewpoints.--Seyyed(t-c) 17:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I answered to you on the talk page of the article. My knowledge about textualists is few and my attitude is negative. So please help me with improving that part.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia

As salam. The lead you suggested in the Islamophobia belongs in another section. It almost gives the impression that the term is in truth, a "myth" or a "wretched concept." In other words, the lead, if carefully read, has Factual Proposition--> After Factual Proposotion --> After Factual Proposition --> Then ---> views of those who call it a "myth" or "wretched concept" which perhaps draws the reader to make an unwarranted inference that the views of those who call it a "myth" or "wretched concept" IS a factual proposition. Jazaks. Scythian1 (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey bro/sis Itaqallah, respectfully, I have to say that the article has a awkward and overly bitter flavor if those "views" are placed in the very beginning as poisoning the well really comes to mind. Scythian1 (talk) 06:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not contend that views may be offered in the lead, the quotes offered in the article, such that the concept is "wretched" represent an extreme version of the opposing views. I would recommend that if a "view" is espoused, all the views should be summarized into brief version without Rushdie's quote which can be placed in the views section. I would suggest, therefore, that perhaps, this could be used: "Although the term is widely recognized and used, it has not been without controversy. Opponents argue that the term "Islamophobia" is often misused to undermine criticism of Islam." I would imagine this would constitute as a brief view pursuant to WP:LEAD without improperly accentuating one particular quote. Scythian1 (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Prophet article

Salam Alaykum,

		The Islamic Barnstar
		God bless you! You've done a great work on Muhammad. It's really nice article.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the article is accepted as a GA, however there is an important point which I added[1]. I can't compromise on omitting the issue anyway, even if it lead to the failing of the article. God bless you.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have enough time before somebody start reviewing the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahl Al-Bayt and the Ahl-Al Bayt series template

Hello again. Yesterday you asked about changing the Ahl Al-Bayt template. I would be more than willing to help in this regard, but I frankly find myself at a loss, being rather unfamiliar with much of the Sunni view of what is considered Ahl Al-Bayt (other than that emphasis is given to Aisha) and also at a loss at how to display within the template what is considered Ahl Al-Bayt to sunnis and what is considered Ahl Al-Bayt to Shiites.

The other thing I was going to ask you about was the article itself. The Ahl Al-Bayt article is a total mess. I've been hacking away at it and I still haven't made much of a dent. Any help you could give me, especially regarding citing sources and fixing the citations currently given, would be much appreciated. Peter Deer (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

I think that Ahl Al-Bayt and Muhammad's wives should be merged. Its hard to separate one from the other, given the sophisticated relationships.Bless sins (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources of Islamic law

Salam Alaykum

This article is assessed as a good article recently. I found some major problems from technical viewpoint, thus I want to add expert tag on it. What's your idea?--Seyyed(t-c) 02:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look... ITAQALLAH 21:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is reassessed. Please check [2]. Thanks.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salam Alaykum

Federalism & Syncretism is good for Islam.

Freedom of speech to morality & truth, censorship to immorality. I really respect Islam, my religious persuasions are Syncretic Polytheism. Muslim readers feel free to interview me, I am pro Human Rights & pro Human Dignity.

Ave Iustitia; Morality & Justice is the center of Civilization.

"Protect the victims & pursue the perpetrators"

We end the fighting so that we may live in peace; cease-fire, diplomacy & peace negotiations ends the fighting peacefully. Prevent a fight with morality, end a fight with self defense & defense of others.

Federal Syncretism is the concern for synchronization between different cultures, philosophies & religions, without those losing their individual independence.

Syncretism can also be translated as feast or to party.

Sincerely, Phalanx Pursos 22:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technical review

Salam Alaykum,

We really need your viewpoint about Sources of Islamic law. Please review it and add your opinion here.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Zakir Naik

Assalamualaykum, Just saw what you've done for the article. JazakAllahu Khair.

Wassalaam, ~Abd elAzeez
'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any reply?

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Homosexuality_and_Islam#Edit_on_Muslim_literature In particular to have any opinion on changing the name of Pederasty in the Middle East and Central Asia http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Pederasty_in_the_Middle_East_and_Central_Asia#Proposed_name_change --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on talk. ITAQALLAH 12:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus in Islam

I reverted my edit, thank you for telling me. Peter Deer (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zakir Naik

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Zakir Naik, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

Removing baseless tags because your content (sourced to fringe, extremist websites) does not meet general content policies, let alone WP:BLP, is not vandalism at all. I'm not convinced you know what vandalism is and is not, Agnistus. ITAQALLAH 11:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have given Agnistus a 24 hr block for NPA. Please could you ensure you remain calm and polite (as you have been so far). Thanks. --BozMo talk 21:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind little "I will get you blocked" warning. Please remember you are the one who started the edit war, not me. All I tried to do was keep a NPOV. I will ask my friend to revert your edit as soon as he can (which does not break the 3-revert rule since "The rule applies per editor." and my friend uses a seperate account not owned/controlled by me). Your continual content removal is nothing but vandalism. - Agnistus (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for making BozMo aware of this (and then reverting the edit in his talk page); just as I expected you would. It seems you will go to great lengths to get me blocked. And BTW, I asked my friend to help me; it is not a sockpuppet account. - Agnistus (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You call it meatpuppetry, but I say it is support from another editor. - Agnistus (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fatimah issue.

Join me here: Template talk:Fatimah --Enzuru 08:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on talk. ITAQALLAH 12:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Ummah

I wanted to create a set of "principles" for the Wikiproject Islam called One Ummah. Where along with hadith and notability issues, we would have a written consensus on how to deal transliteration, how articles should be written, phrases that will stay away from controversy, how we should deal with issues such as disagreements between Muslim groups. It would also help us deal with templates, and keep things on the Sunni and Shi'a side relatively continuous. I was wondering, if you agree something like this would be helpful, if you'd like to help me draft things up? --Enzuru 23:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the naming suggestion. Here we go: User talk:Enzuru/ConstitutionIslam --Enzuru 00:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, you can take it out. I have it in there just to deal with notability and organizational issues, ie category tags and people who go around taking the "Islam" out of "Ahmadiyya." --Enzuru 20:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two things

1. You said:

"The attribution to Andrae was that he said it was a savage act by the standards of Muhammad's day. Indeed, he pretty much says it's a savage act, and this seems to be his personal perspective, but he makes no mention of the "standards of Muhammad's day" - so including Andrae in any discussion about precedent or the conditions of those times is quite misleading."

I take it then that you would want to have him removed from that passage alltogether?

2. Thanks for offering your help. The passage I am looking for is Watt, Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman, pages. 170-175.

Str1977 ^(talk) 15:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Secret admirer

Given the account's first edit to wikipedia, as well as all others are simply reverts of my edits, do you think the account is a sock puppet of someone who knows me personally?

In addition, jazak Allah for undoing the reversion.Bless sins (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case should I seek an administrator to help me? Because the behavior of the user is unmistakably unjustifiable by even the lowest standards.Bless sins (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources of Islamic law

Salam Alaykum,

Please check Sources of Islamic law as soon as possible. It's close to GA status and we need your help to reach that point. From Sunni point of view, it has some problems. Please read my comments here and Talk:Sources_of_Islamic_law#Overemphasizing_on_Hanafi_school. --Seyyed(t-c) 14:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahl al-Kisa templates

Under the Shi'a section of templates like Ali and Fatimah, would you mine me returning the image and list of the other Ahl al-Kisa, or would it still give too much of a Shi'a point of view? --Enzuru 22:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albani article

Salam alayk. Yeah, you must be tired of hearing from me by now. ;) I've been abnormally civil this time, i'm almost proud of myself. Regardless, i've been hit with the same accusations of POV and dishonesty by new/single issue editors. Mainly for removing masud.co.uk, sunnah.org, and other sites from Haddad, Keller, and Kabbani per WP:RS. Perhaps you can explain this to them better than I. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template coding

Can you help me with template codings, or know somebody else who can. Salam alayk. Farhansher (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fatimah

al-islam.org does meet the requirements and the website does not provide original research, but cites dozens of books as references. I understand how you might find what's written offending and targeting of your beliefs but the paragraph mentions it as the Shia view so please respect other people's beliefs. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the facts stated and sourced by al-islam.org are threatening to your whole belief system, it doesn't make it a sectarian, polemical website. In fact, unlike other websites like ansar.org and d-sunnah.net that are actually extremely sectarian and polemical, al-islam.org is used as reference by universities and learning institutions. Regardless of how much al-islam.org is reliable, it states known historical books as references and the story it narrates about the killing of Fatima represents the view held by almost all Shia Muslims, including Ayatollah Sistani whose website al-shia.com narrates the same story and uses Sunni references (see here] and here). Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit your comments

In a recent edit [3] you changed your comment ("Whether it's true or not is secondary here." to "That it's true is secondary here.") after I read it and while I was thinking about it. The edit changed the meaning of the sentence. This is not permitted. If you want, write a new comment.- Agnistus (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on your talk page, I can alter my comments if I deem necessary. I read through it again and realised that it wasn't quite the point I was trying to get across. No one replied to it, so there's no issue in changing it. ITAQALLAH 21:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree with you regarding archiving. But you cannot edit your own comments, please see talk guidelines for more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnistus (talk • contribs) 21:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's bad practice to edit your comments after people have responded to it. There's nothing wrong with changing your wording to something more accurate if nobody has responded. This is stuff of mountains and molehills, methinks. ITAQALLAH 21:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnistus (talk • contribs) 21:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive part of Talk:Zakir Naik

Talk:Zakir Naik is now over 120 KB.

I suggest moving the first 4 sections of Talk:Zakir Naik into Archive 2:

1 Article is still disputed.
2 Article should be deleted.
3 Article must be balanced.
4 What the article really needs is:

Please tell me if you agree by 20:00, June 20th 2008 (UTC). Thankyou. - Agnistus (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As all the sections are still pertinent to the context of the dispute, they should remain. ITAQALLAH 16:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indecent/Personal Attacks on co-editors? comment

You said: "I don't see how one can make a personal attack and then sincerely apologise for it in the same edit. ITAQALLAH 16:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC) "Where did I make a P.A. this time?" - Agnistus (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply? - Agnistus (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This says it all. ITAQALLAH 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Are you sure I violated it? Because I added new material and I removed some. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agnistus Note

Thanks for taking the issue to AN/I. It has helped me correct myself and learn a lesson. Thankyou again since you have guided me in the straight path.

You action reminds me of verse 1:6

Guide us to the straight path
اهدِنَــــا الصِّرَاطَ المُستَقِيمَ
Ihdinā ṣ-ṣirāṭ al mustaqīm

I gift you a barnstar for this, this and most importantly for being such a hard-working editor and great scholar of Islam.

Alhamdulillah / الحمد لله

- Agnistus (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Islamic Barnstar
		I, Agnistus award this Barnstar to Itaqallah for his priceless contributions to Islam related articles.

Just to let you know, I am helping you get rid of poorly sourced material from Wikipedia. Hope you are pleased. - Agnistus (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sources of Islamic law/GA2

Salam Alaykum,

We're waiting here for your viewpoint to judge about the article. Please add your view as soon as possible.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Succession to Muhammad

Salam Alaykum,

I start working on this article. Due to the fact that I don't want to participate in any editorial war or exhausting discussion, please check it now. --Seyyed(t-c) 05:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salam Alaykum, Due to I know your stance I asked you to participate in it. I don't want to have problem with you later.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism's view of Muhammad

Assalamualaykum Brother Itaqallah
Haven't heard from you ~~lately~~ :) so thought I'd drop in a kind salaam. BTW I've been working on Judaism's view of Muhammad for a couple of days alongside a Jewish co-editor. Since it might pick up speed soon I thought you'd like to know of it InshaAllah. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 12:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newlater for Islam wikiproject

Salam Alakum,

Can we make something like this for our wikiproject?--Seyyed(t-c) 05:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Hadith edit

Hi Itaqallah. I'm fine thx. Hope you're doing well, too :) My revert in Hadith was a mistake; I should have been more careful, and in future I will. Thanks for picking up on that and bringing it to my attention. Cheers! MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious sources

Salam Alaykum,

There is a discussion about using Religious sources. I hope you can ad your view about the issue here.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Praise of Islam

If there has been criticism of Islam, then there has also been praise of the faith. Should such an article exist/ Or should we merely merge those views into "criticism of Islam", renaming it to "views on Islam"?Bless sins (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moses:On hold

Salam Alaykum,

At present I'm reviewing Moses. It has narrated the life of Moses on the basis of Bible, and I think we should pat attention to Qur'an too. Thus I asked to narrate Moses's life on the basis of Qur'an. I think Shia and sunni agree on it and we can use al-Mizan as a source. But please check it and help me with it.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Credible author

Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the telescope article but this editor seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in Mr. Richard Powers. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.

Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus, so I will do the same. The Islamic connection here is, Al-Haytham. He is FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. Can you help your fellow InternetHero?? InternetHero (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do have nerve

I'm in no danger of violating 3RR. I made one revert of your removal of sourced material. You're free to revert that if you wish, as I'm done dealing with that mess. S. Dean Jameson 19:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, you have nerve. You've discussed it to death on the talkpage, and haven't achieved consensus to remove the sourced material. You removed it anyway, and then reverted it again when I restored the sourced material. Then you accused me of bordering on 3RR. I'm finished dealing with you, and your article. S. Dean Jameson 19:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I'm not convinced you've actually read my comments: I've dismissed these red herrings of 'consensus' and 'source material' several times now. ITAQALLAH 20:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Islam/Selected Muslim

Salam Alaykum,

It's good idea to discuss before imposing your own view. --Seyyed(t-c) 12:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest adding Saladin in Portal:Crusades instead of Charles Martel or beside him.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I remember I discussed with you about it, however I proposed some criteria in the talk page to clarify which article is better to put there. I'll be happy if you help with me to improve it.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the related talk page and read my view about him. However, I don't mean not to add Sunni figures. I think Al-Ghazali is a good case. There is also another solution which makes both of us satisfy. You can add the article of The Prophet which is good article. On the other hand I can help you with adding Saladin in Portal:Crusades.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I didn't bother you. We have different viewpoints and I can't really understand why do you prefer Saladin when there are better representatives such as Al-Ghazali. We can make a periodic system which satisfy both of us.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]