View source for User talk:Sahab/Archive

== New Editor ==

Hi,

I'm a new editor, I wish to contribute my articles on Islamic miracle claims to this site. How do I get about doing this?

[[User:Nahar Varma|Nahar Varma]] ([[User talk:Nahar Varma|talk]]) 04:15, 10 December 2012 (PST)

:Welcome to WikiIslam! Nice to have you here. If you want to work on an article from scratch, you can click this link: [[User:Nahar Varma/Sandbox]]. If you have an article already written, you can go to [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Help:Contents#How_to_Create_a_New_Page this page] and enter the desired page title into the box, then press the "Create page" button. Be sure to add this template to the top of the page while it is formatted etc: <nowiki>{{Underconstruction}}</nowiki>. I will leave our welcome template on your user-talk page because it contains a lot of useful links to help you get the hang of wiki editing, but feel free to ask for additional assistance when needed.--[[User:Sahabah|Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 04:29, 10 December 2012 (PST)
::hi Nahar, good to see you here. I'm the person who responded to your email. Nahar had sent the following email ([http://www.debunkingbucailleism.blogspot.com blog]):
<pre>Hello,

I am interested in studying different religions, although personally I'm not religious; I am a Deist. 
I came across scientific miracle claims in the Qur'an in early 2011. I soon came across your website, 
and inspired by it, I have started my own blog refuting the claims of Islamic Bucailleists: www.debunkingbucailleism.blogspot.com

The articles refuting miracle claims are very good, but there are too few of them, hence I'd like to contribute. 

Sincerely,
Nahar Varma</pre>

::Nahar, today I'll go over your site and then comment here.--[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 05:25, 10 December 2012 (PST)
:::Ok, Nahar, I guess you will have to go over [[Islam and Science]] yourself and see if your arguments are already present there or in one of the sub-articles. You would start from your first article (written in September, when you started the blog). I liked what you had in this post [http://www.debunkingbucailleism.blogspot.com/2012/09/three-criteria-for-scientific.html Three Criteria for Scientific Foreknowledge]. I see some of that has been covered in our Islam and Science introduction (we have 4 points and you have 3).
:::My suggestion: The steps for you would be to go over what we have on our site and get an idea of the types of pages we have and then go to your blog one by one and see where you can add your content. We may not have some topics that you have. Then for example after checking the articles for September, you see that some stuff should be added on our site, let us know what you think you should do. The language should of course be changed to 3rd person. Sorry I could not give a detailed/helpful analysis of what should be done but I'm pressed for time. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 21:04, 11 December 2012 (PST)

== Ref ==

FFI is slow right now. Where it says "actual" and there's two bullets: [[User:Axius/Sandbox2]].

Do you know what variables you used in the "sample"?

So does this means we also want to change the way the publication date is displayed? Its going to take some time for to understand this template. So what you could do is tell me how you would use that in a page with that example under "sample". Also we need to somehow make it easy for people to use this template. Wikipedia has a popup that comes up with you click Cite or Ref in their edit toolbar. 

This certain change is not an irreversible change because now the variables have been separated, so we can change the display later at any time even after its been used 1000's of times. We want to make sure that most of the variables we use usually, are displayed in the way we want. So for example the way you wanted it, is a better way for our site. Yea its simpler and looks better. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 18:15, 10 December 2012 (PST)

:Okay, I'm not sure if I understand what you're asking, so you'll have to forgive me if my responses are off. :)

: ''"Do you know what variables you used in the "sample"?"''

:It's the author(s) name, article title, publisher name (website), date published, then archive details.

:''"So does this means we also want to change the way the publication date is displayed?"''

:Yes please. Like on our Honor Killing Index where you input numbers, but it comes out with the full month's name, then the day's number followed by the year.

:''"So what you could do is tell me how you would use that in a page with that example under "sample"."''

:Hmm. I'd just use it like we do on regular pages, such as the statistics pages, etc. although we would also need  another template for references we cite in the actual quote boxes (e.g. our Persecution pages, Islam in the News pages, etc. It would also be nice to have an optional section after the date but before the archiving details. This is because some pages that we cite are not in English, but I link to an English translation with the text: 

:([http://translation.com English translation])

:or in another case, the original article was gone from the net before I even cited it, so I did this: 

:"Gay police group's "anti-Christian" ad rapped", Reuters, October 18, 2006 ([http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061018/od_nm/britain_ad_dc/ Original URL]|[{{Reference archive|1=http%3A%2F%2Flittlegreenfootballs.com%2Fweblog%2F%3Fentry%3D23002_UK_Muslims-_2%2525_of_Population_25%2525_of_Anti-Gay_Crimes%26only|2=2012-11-27}} Charles Johnson's commentary]|[{{Reference archive|1=http://www.orange-order.co.uk/topic/3791-gay-police-groups-anti-christian-ad-rapped/|2=2012-11-27}} Full text])

:Another good optional thing to add would be a quote section right at the beginning, before the name of the author etc. --[[User:Sahabah|Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 05:20, 11 December 2012 (PST)
Oops sorry in a hurry right now so I may have missed some of your points. I'll come back to the rest of what you wrote when I work on this, but say, for the News pages, we have:

Using the Ref archive template:
{{Quote|1=[{{Reference archive|1=http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2012/10/23/birmingham-jihadists-plotted-to-cause-maximum-carnage-in-name-of-allah-court-told-97319-32086702/|2=2012-10-24}} Birmingham Jihadists plotted to cause maximum carnage in name of Allah, court told]<BR>Nick McCarthy, Birmingham Mail‎, October 23, 2012|2=Three Birmingham men masterminded a suicide bombing campaign involving eight simultaneous explosions in crowded places, a court has heard.}}

How Cite web would look like, if I fixed it:
{{Quote|1=[http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2012/10/23/birmingham-jihadists-plotted-to-cause-maximum-carnage-in-name-of-allah-court-told-97319-32086702/ Birmingham Jihadists plotted to cause maximum carnage in name of Allah, court told]. ([http://www.www.com archived] on 12-12-2012)<BR>Nick McCarthy, Birmingham Mail‎, October 23, 2012|2=Three Birmingham men masterminded a suicide bombing campaign involving eight simultaneous explosions in crowded places, a court has heard.}}
So we have that additional archive link as you wanted it. The date will be there since the template requires "archive date" to be included if Archive URL is there (see #3 under 'Actual'). Or would you rather always hide the Archive date? So it would be like:
* Janet Levy, [http://www.ccc.com "Church Hosting Muslim Public Affairs Council Receives Emails ‘Dripping with Hate’"], Family Security Matters, December 10, 2012 ([http://www.ccc.com archived]) 
(simply displayed as 'archived').

If deadlink =yes, the part in brackets would be: (archived from the [http://www.ccc.com original]). I want to use the same Cite web any time we make an external link so the Dead link detector/archival bot later on can scan pages for dead links and archive links by itself.

In the last example you gave, we would just use the 1st (original) and 3rd link (archive), correct? So it would be:

[http://www.ccc.com "Gay police group's "anti-Christian" ad rapped"], October 18, 2006 (archived from the [http://www.ccc.com original])

The 2nd link is not working. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 21:30, 11 December 2012 (PST)

:''"Or would you rather always hide the Archive date? So it would be like:"''

:Yes, please! If that is okay with you, that would be cool.

:''"How Cite web would look like, if I fixed it:"''

:I'm thinking about how it would look for people who copy/paste our stuff on forums/text files, so I think having the archive link after the publication date would be better (just like the other normal reference used with the <nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki> template). Including speech marks would also be good so people can tell it's the title (I know I should have been doing this already, but I was new to wiki editing when I first started here). So it would look like this:

:{{Quote|1=[http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2012/10/23/birmingham-jihadists-plotted-to-cause-maximum-carnage-in-name-of-allah-court-told-97319-32086702/ "Birmingham Jihadists plotted to cause maximum carnage in name of Allah, court told"]<BR>Nick McCarthy, Birmingham Mail‎, October 23, 2012 ([http://www.www.com archived])|2=Three Birmingham men masterminded a suicide bombing campaign involving eight simultaneous explosions in crowded places, a court has heard.}}

:''"The 2nd link is not working."''

:Oops! Just ignore that. The archive attempt at LGF must have failed there.

:''"In the last example you gave, we would just use the 1st (original) and 3rd link (archive), correct? So it would be:"''

:No. My point was that I read that news report on the LGF blog, but by the time I discovered the statistics quoted on that blog, the original Reuters article had ''completely'' disappeared from the net. The original news url was dead, so there was ''nothing'' there to archive. The third link I provide is ''not'' an archived copy, it's a copy/paste someone made on a Christian forum. We cannot link to a forum post as if it's the actual news story. Hence I referenced it like how some academic paper do (without the url), but then added the original url, blog commentary, and a copy/paste of the full text as additional supplementary proof that we didn't just make the story up. --[[User:Sahabah|Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 02:46, 12 December 2012 (PST)

::Hmm, I've been thinking about it, and maybe it would look better with the archive on top? Like this:

::{{Quote|1=[http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2012/10/23/birmingham-jihadists-plotted-to-cause-maximum-carnage-in-name-of-allah-court-told-97319-32086702/ "Birmingham Jihadists plotted to cause maximum carnage in name of Allah, court told"] ([http://www.www.com archived])<BR>Nick McCarthy, Birmingham Mail‎, October 23, 2012|2=Three Birmingham men masterminded a suicide bombing campaign involving eight simultaneous explosions in crowded places, a court has heard.}}

::Yeah. For our "Islam in the News", etc. this way of citing things looks much better. --[[User:Sahabah|Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 03:49, 12 December 2012 (PST)
:::Currently I'm swamped and I'll try to do this. Until then the template can be used and when we change the implementation, it will change itself anywhere its used. The only problem is usage in quote boxes and for that, use the variable "linebreak=yes" and when its implemented, it will be fixed. Or you can continue to use the RefArchive.
:::I might try to re-write the template for our simple usage. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 16:33, 13 December 2012 (PST)
::::Cool. I'll continue using the RefArchive for now, until the other one is ready. --[[User:Sahabah|Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 17:38, 13 December 2012 (PST)

== Reason of Block? ==

Respected Sir,

I was trying to enter a critical site of Islam without logging in. Why was my IP blocked and site deleted??

:My apologies. It was a mistake. The IP is now unblocked and I have added the site to our list. You can view it [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_on_the_Net:_Recently_Added here]. Just had a quick browse and it looks great! --[[User:Sahabah|Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 15:54, 21 December 2012 (PST)

== Page Title ==

I had meant to say this before. <nowiki>{{</nowiki>Page_title|Blah}} should be used instead of DISPLAY_Title because its a template that we can track usage for. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 09:46, 22 December 2012 (PST)

== Essay oped ==

Here it is: [[Special:Form/Essay-oped-submission]]. The editable stuff is here: [[WikiIslam:Form Submissions]]. Sample essay I just made using the form: [[Title_of_my_essay]]. I was testing and testing is complete for now. We can add/change fields. Maybe other sites could be checked to see if there's any fields they're showing for their opeds. 

There's a URL field but there's no place right now where we're using something like that on the essay pages. I can remove that field and we can ask the author to include their website at the end if they have one. Then if everyone usually has a URL, we can put it in the form and maybe make an author box like the former Muslims (examples: name, topics of interest, URL, country of origin, current belief system, picture, favorite authors if any, favorite publications or websites they visit) - whatever you think will make that page interesting and being individualized. The reader basically would want to know more about the author, who they are and where they're coming from. All of it can be optional, except the name of course.

Thats why I think it would be a good idea to check out other sites and see how they present their essay/opeds. I might look around too. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 19:44, 23 December 2012 (PST)

:Op-eds are not like Testimonies, and we shouldn't make them alike. I don't think we should have any more info on the authors of op-eds other than their name and website/blog. With testimonies, who the author is, is what's important. In op-eds/essays, who the author is, is irrelevant. It's their opinions that matter. People shouldn't care what their favorite color is or whatever. In my opinion, the less we know about the authors, the better. If their essay/op-ed isn't interesting enough on its own, we shouldn't consider it to be good enough to have on WikiIslam.

:If you look on other sites you'll notice two ways of doing it. 

:1) they only have their name (if you click on that name, it ''may'' go to a ''separate'' page with some details about them). [some examples: separate page [http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/15/terrorism-against-feelings/] name and link only [http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/bringing-dark-ages-to-the-streets-of-sydney/story-e6frezz0-1226476034310]]

:2) they have a line or two at the ''bottom'' of the page. It usually says something like, "Blah is a professor at whatever university who has authored this many books and regularly blogs at www.somewhere.crap" [some examples: [http://hotnhitnews.com/Islamist-Terrorism-Events-spotlight-Soccer-as-a-Jihadist-recruitment-tool-HotnHitNews-194014102012.htm] [http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3240/spring-islamic-fundamentalism]]

:So if we do go down the route of including info about the author, I think we should keep the set-up how it is and add those lines on a separate page, i.e. their category page (which could also contain a link to their blog/website). --[[User:Sahabah|Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 22:27, 23 December 2012 (PST)
::Good points. Yea I think #1 is good enough, with any available info (URL of site or blog, etc) present on their category page. I looked around and yea there's just a link to the author's info. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 07:15, 24 December 2012 (PST)

== Revelation of the Hijab ==

I see there's a summary and then a conclusion for [[Revelation of the Hijab]]. I bet the two can be merged (e.g. something like [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Revelation_of_the_Hijab&diff=80139&oldid=80137]).--[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 08:27, 31 December 2012 (PST)
::No, that's actually the second half of the "Reasoning on the hijab" section. So moving it to the conclusion would make the article not make any sense. I've changed the title of the sub-heading now so it doesn't confuse readers. --[[User:Sahabah|Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 10:18, 31 December 2012 (PST)
:::Ok yea thats better, thanks for fixing it. I hadnt read the text but I saw there were two summary/conclusion sections. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 13:10, 31 December 2012 (PST)

== Style page ==

So I started this which I've thought of doing before [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Manual_of_Style]. If you capitalize all the initial letters, is there a reference manual for that? This page should list all the style rules that we follow. Personally I don't know which way is correct for headings: sentence case only, which is only first letter capital, or Title Case (all first letters capitalized). If they're both equally recommended and standardized, we should stick to what we currently have for most pages. I think that for the Title Case rule, the smaller words are not treated (of, the, a, etc). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 20:37, 2 January 2013 (PST)
:Yeah, we should stick to the Title Case rule. It looks best and almost all of our pages are like that ATM. Wikipedia chose the "sentence-style capitalization" because they say it's easier to link to from inline page text, but we already pick what is better over what is easier (e.g. Wikipedia uses brackets etc., in page titles/URLs, but we don't). 

:On another note, isn't [[WikiIslam:Standardization]] the same thing as [[WikiIslam:Manual of Style]]?--[[User:Sahabah|Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 23:01, 2 January 2013 (PST)
::Ok yea, I moved it to that existing page. Thanks for fixing/linking that testimony of freethought relay. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 17:55, 3 January 2013 (PST)

== Freethinker/athiest ==

We dont have an option for freethinker in the add form [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Special:Form/newapostate]. According to this [http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/freethinker.htm] they're different terms. The more popular choice chosen will always be atheist but some might want any label/boxing and so they might want to choose free thinker. So I was thinking of adding it, and their category can remain "unknown/misc beliefs", as its a small number of people who will chose it. How's that. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 08:56, 5 January 2013 (PST)
:"Freethinker" isn't a belief or world-view. In fact that page basically states anyone (regardless of their belief) can be one. So it's a pointless descriptor. Someone may choose "Freethinker", and it would tell us nothing of their world-view, whether they're agnostic, atheist, Christian, Hindu and so on. It's the same as us having a choice for "pacifist" or "Communist" as a choice. --[[User:Sahabah|Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 09:08, 5 January 2013 (PST)
::If they don't want any labels, we should have an option stating, "Withheld", like we do for country of origin/residence. --[[User:Sahabah|Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 09:10, 5 January 2013 (PST)
:::Hmm. Would also add the fact that so many assume only atheists can be freethinkers is kinda insulting to freethinking theists. --[[User:Sahabah|Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 09:16, 5 January 2013 (PST)
::::Sounds good. I emailed him to choose between atheism and humanism, humanism. I'll add 'withheld' to the choices. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 09:17, 5 January 2013 (PST)
Cool. Don't we have an option for both atheism and humanism? I thought we did. --[[User:Sahabah|Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 09:22, 5 January 2013 (PST)
:Yea we do, he'll say if he wants atheism or humanism (currently he had edited it to say free thinker). Also told him, no more changes in the box after this one. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 09:27, 5 January 2013 (PST)

== Factual Persuasion ==

Hi. If there is a problem with a page, you discuss it on the talk page, not on edit summaries. Also, as I have already pointed out, we editors cannot edit published books that WikiIslam hosts in its online library. For example, there's plenty of thing I don't agree with in the Qur'an, but that doesn't mean it's okay for me to edit out parts of Yusuf Ali's translation and still call it a Qur'an. Your corrections of typos is greatly appreciated, but you will be blocked if you continue to try and rewrite someone else's book. --[[User:Sahabah|Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 07:57, 28 January 2013 (PST)
:Sorry, I thought that since this is a wiki it was editable. As you can see from my edits, all have been in good faith. I had no idea that this was supposed to be an exact reproduction of a published work.
:That being the case, it would be expedient to insert a note stating that this is not the opinion of WikiIslam or something to that effect.
:To give you a bit of context, due to the economic crisis I am between jobs (hopefully for a short while) and I can sketch you a picture of what welfare is like:
:First, it's not a lot of money. Between rent, living expenses, transport fares and fixed expenses, as well as payback of debts incurred when I got fired, not much is left. But without it I would die.
:When you first apply for welfare, you are sent to a work camp.
:And later on, you're forced by the government to apply for jobs, even low chance or low pay vacancies.
:At present, due to the economic crisis, about 8% of the population is dependent on welfare; most are not Islamists. If you tell us ‘you have to die to solve the Islam problem’ then frankly I say don't solve it. However there is no factual evidence that welfare exacerbates Islamisation.
:Should we give up on welfare because some of it could be paid to Muslims? Should we abolish free speech because it allows the Imams to preach? Should we abolish freedom of the printing press because it allows Korans to be printed? And so on... the result would be an Islamic state in everything but name.
:Please understand that WikiIslam has, no matter what you may say, a public relations aspect to it. You should be careful not to alienate your potential supporters.
::Hi again. You'll have to excuse any typos of my own, since I'm using an annoying mobile device at the moment.
::'''"Sorry, I thought that since this is a wiki it was editable. As you can see from my edits, all have been in good faith."'''
:: No problem. I apologize if I was a bit short with you. Yes, this is a wiki, but we're not like Wikipedia. I would say we're more like Wikipedia, Wikinews, Wikisource, and a whole lot more rolled into one. We're a complete resource. So while we have many encyclopedic articles that can improved, edited or completely rewritten (depending on what the situation calls for), we also have many things that would be at home on Wikipedia's sister-project, Wikisource. For example, if you tried to do anything other than fixing typos/formatting on their copy of ''History of the Saracens'' (1857) by ''Simon Ockley''[http://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/History_of_the_Saracens ], it would be reverted
:: '''"I had no idea that this was supposed to be an exact reproduction of a published work."'''
::Yes, it's written by Dr. Bill Warner, published by CSPI Publishing and can be bought at Amazon.com for $9.95. All the details and links are provided on the front page, and the authors name and link to his website are provided on every page above the table of contents.
::'''"That being the case, it would be expedient to insert a note stating that this is not the opinion of WikiIslam or something to that effect."'''
::We do make a note of this on our main library page, where it states, "material in the library do not necessarily reflect the views of WikiIslam". Other than that, we make it very clear on their main pages that they are reproductions of published work written by a particular author, so there isn't much need for additional disclaimers.
::'''"To give you a bit of context, due to the economic crisis I am between jobs (hopefully for a short while) and I can sketch you a picture of what welfare is like .... "'''
::I understand what you're saying. It's not a part of WikiIslam's mission to express opinions about such things. This site is not about politics. We wouldn't host written work if it was about welfare or immigration. Factual Persuasion is about refuting some of the myths and arguments used by apologist. It's unfortunate that politics creeps into it, but there is little we can do about.
::'''"Please understand that WikiIslam has, no matter what you may say, a public relations aspect to it. You should be careful not to alienate your potential supporters."'''
::Well, unlike other similiar site's that have an audience largely limited to the US or Europe, WikiIslam's readership is vast. If you take into consideration the hundreds of editors that have contributed to this site, we're a diverse group of people from all over the world, and we have policies in place to reflect that. We try to stay away from politics, we do not give one area of the globe more importance than another, we do not comment on other religions or worldviews, etc. It's not perfect, but we try our best even though it's impossible to please everyone all the time. --[[User:Sahabah|Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 22:58, 28 January 2013 (PST)
:Hello IP, in addition to the above, the author is not implying that all welfare should be abolished, as you have mentioned in your edit summary [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Factual_Persuasion_-_Cant_We_All_Just_Get_Along_Part_2&curid=14197&diff=81201&oldid=79795] and again in the comments above ''"Should we give up on welfare"''. That's an extreme interpretation of what the author meant. This is the problem he's talking about: ''"Muslims make up 5% of the population but receive 40% of social-welfare outlays."'' (for Denmark [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_%28Education_and_Employment%29#Denmark_2]). So what is your reference for the statement that "about 8% of the population is dependent on welfare; most are not Islamists"? I dont think it is true. You can look at the example of Denmark and its pretty much the same all over Europe I would guess. Just a simple search and I found this [http://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/uk-britain-sinking-under-weight-of-welfare-costs-while-unproductive-muslims-cost-a-staggering-18-billion-a-year/]. There's a lot of numbers about Welfare/Muslims that we dont have right now but they are there somewhere and the problem is there. So yes, IP, you just thought the author was attacking welfare in general but its *plainly* obvious that he's only talking about the welfare/Muslim problem for example the 5/40 numbers I mentioned. IP probably wont be coming back for a reply. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 05:27, 29 January 2013 (PST)

== Png ==

Sorry, the PNG resize doesnt work on our current setup. Use JPG files. PNG can be converted to JPG, e.g. this could work [http://www.convertmyimage.com/]. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 21:08, 2 February 2013 (PST)
:Cool. Thanks! I  will do that. I also wanted to change their size etc., but it's so fiddly without my PC. --[[User:Sahabah|Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 21:14, 2 February 2013 (PST)

== Spam bot ==

[http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Viagra_-_Former_Muslim&action=edit&redlink=1 v.gra page]. We might have to keep deleting this page. I dont know why it bypasses the 'security'. Its because that page is made using forms. I'll try to look into that some time. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 18:28, 12 February 2013 (PST)

== Sorry for the rollbacks ==

I don't know what I'm doing :P
[[User:Al-Qaum|User:Al-Qaum]] ([[User talk:Al-Qaum|talk]]) 11:20, 17 February 2013 (PST)
:LOL. No probs! I kinda guessed that :D Nothing to worry about though. You'll get the hang of it with practice. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 11:23, 17 February 2013 (PST)

== Pm ==

Sent you a PM. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 15:39, 5 March 2013 (PST)

== Aceh==

Even though it is in Indonesia, there it is considered an outlier to the rest of the country, so labeling it as Indonesia without qualifying that it's Aceh could lead to accusations of cherry picking and conflating a very religious area of the country with the rest.
Aceh had rebellions against Indonesia and Indonesia gave Aceh autonomy so Aceh could establish Islamic law.
When Aceh comes up you can accuse Indonesia of allowing such a "not so moderate" area to exist, and/or put it under an Aceh header. [[Special:Contributions/76.31.48.157|76.31.48.157]] 07:50, 16 March 2013 (PDT)
:It is a part of Indonesia. You can raise your concern only when it gets complete autonomy and gets a status as a new 'country'. ''Until then'' it falls under Indonesia, no matter what. The government of Indonesia is ''responsible'' for whatever goes on in Aceh. With things like this, it makes it even more important for people to remember that Aceh is part of Indonesia. If any moderate Muslims exist in Indonesia, they need to make sure that Aceh keeps itself under control. It should not be treated like a spoiled child who can do anything they like. You can start that initiative. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 08:18, 16 March 2013 (PDT)
:::To Axius: Even if Aceh never existed, when you look at population and opinion stats, the IP's complaints are invalid. I'll explain how below.

:::To the IP: We're not the ones who are cherry picking. As Axius has already noted, Aceh is still a part of Indonesia and the government of Indonesia is responsible for whatever goes on there. Even you note this when you say, "conflating a very religious ''area of the country'' with the rest". i.e. it is you and anyone else who can claim Indonesia is "moderate" with a straight face who are guilty of cherry picking. Do you realize how stupid your complaint sounds? That's like claiming guns are banned in the US, except for every city that is not Chicago. What are people who live in Aceh if not Indonesians? You can't just exclude a massive chunk of the population just because they don't fit in with whatever point you're trying to make. 

:::Besides, even if we were to exclude ''Indonesians'' who live in Aceh, and deny they were Indonesians, the country of Indonesia still wouldn't deserve the inaccurate title of a "Moderate Muslim country". Just take a look at some of the related statistics. '''57.8% of Muslims in Indonesia oppose the building of non-Muslim places of worship, and 43.5% of Indonesian Muslims (approximately 87 million) ready to wage war for their faith'''[http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Persecution#Indonesia][http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_(Terrorism)#Indonesia]. '''Indonesia as a whole has a population of 237.5 million whilst Aceh only has a comparatively tiny population of 4.5 million.''' Clearly the problem of religious intolerance in Indonesia is not confined to one area, but is a country-wide problem. Face it, unless you've lived your entire life in Saudi Arabia or Iran, there is nothing "moderate" about Indonesia, and the media in general are waking up to this fact. 

:::Additionally, I have no idea why you even bothered to raise this complaint on my talk page, because another editor has already removed the descriptor of "moderate" from all news titles concerning Indonesia.[[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 09:05, 16 March 2013 (PDT)

==Muslim converts to Sikhism==

Thanks for the welcome. What about names that are not on wikipedia? Such as famous Punjabi singer Mohd Sadiq etc, can I put them up myself or? [[User:Thetruth|Thetruth]] ([[User talk:Thetruth|talk]]) 08:09, 3 May 2013 (PDT)
:Yes, go ahead, but please make sure his conversion is referenced to a reliable news source. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 08:18, 3 May 2013 (PDT)

== Moonshine's "edits" ==

As a visitor of this site I appreciate your effort in supplying facts concerning Islam critics. There is a need for lighting out the truth into public sight. However I’m failing to understand the way of presentation of articles and how you treat editors. If I’m getting it right some materials are reproductions of other articles by external authors and are not meant for editing or discussion. If so why are they shown on public as editable and discussable, because they shouldn't be then. If I’m wrong please explain, cause it’s misleading as I said.
What I’m talking about is my attempt of correcting inaccuracy of “Allahu Akbar” article on Russian talk page when all the arguments for editing were given in polite and meaningful way. However it was all deleted and even account blocked! If my explanation seemed wrong to you then why not leave a small comment on it and delete after a while or leave essential statements for everyone not to spawn repeats. After all it’s good for site being correct and not compromised by obviously false statements. Anyway good luck with your project. ~~[http://wikiislam.net/wiki/User_talk:Moonshine Moonshine] 21:06, 16 May 2013 (GMT +4)
:Hi Moonshine, users on the RU site are free to administer their site in any way they like as long as it follows our core [[guidelines]]. You linked Wikipedia's block policy and this is not a branch of Wikipedia. We're a separate site. Back to the issue, go ahead and edit the English version of [[Allahu Akbar]] if you think the same issue lies there too and we can deal with it here. What was the point you were trying to make? We deal with a lot of edits which are vandalism or people trying to insert Muslim points of view, so frequently we don't have time for discussion and we simply revert and block to save ourselves time. This is probably what happened. But you can tell us if the same 'issue' (if any) exists with the english article and we'll go from here. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 13:42, 16 May 2013 (PDT)

::To Axius:

::No, Muslims do ''not'' try to "insert Muslim points of view". In most cases, as in the "Allahu Akbar" article, it is WikiIslam that reflects the accurate mainstream Muslim point of view. They try to insert an ''apologetic point of view''. The difference between those things is a massive one. You should remember that because what you said is inaccurate and doesn't sound too good.

::To Moonshine: 

::'''"If I’m getting it right some materials are reproductions of other articles by external authors and are not meant for editing or discussion... If I’m wrong please explain"'''
::You're wrong. Only some of the published content in our [[library]] is 'uneditable'. They are left open for edits because grammar and spelling fixes are welcome. The "Allahu Akbar" article is open for editing and has had several different users contribute material to it. If it has an author category on it, it is because that particular editor was the person who originally submitted it to the site.
::'''"What I’m talking about is my attempt of correcting inaccuracy of “Allahu Akbar” article"'''
::You mean your attempt at vandalizing the article. I have already explained why you are wrong.
::'''"If my explanation seemed wrong to you then why not leave a small comment on it and delete after a while or leave essential statements for everyone not to spawn repeats."'''
::Because your silly claim is ALREADY refuted in the article itself, so why would we want the same thing plastered over the talk page? The fact that you're behaving like it hasn't already been dealt with shows you are a time waster who hasn't even bothered reading the entire article. Plus you should have discussed it with other editors prior to making such a drastic change to the ''conclusion'' of the article. Anyhow, here's your chance. As Axius said, make the changes on the English version. I do not speak or read Russian, so it was hard for me to have a meaningful conversation. However, you write English very well, and so do I.[[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 17:18, 16 May 2013 (PDT)
:::Right I mean they would try to insert stuff that is pro-Islamic/apologetic. Its clear what I meant. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 17:30, 16 May 2013 (PDT)
::::It is clear to me and probably anyone with an IQ above 40. But since when has that stopped apologists from twisting words? :) [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 17:39, 16 May 2013 (PDT)
:::::Which they would do in any case. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 18:15, 16 May 2013 (PDT)
::::::But because of your ill choice of words, they wouldn't need to lie or twist anything. What you wrote above, reads as an (incorrect) admission that WikiIslam reverts "people trying to insert Muslim points of view". Why give them the ammunition?[[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 18:22, 16 May 2013 (PDT)

== help ==
hi. are you admin of this site? if i want to build new article, can you help me ? [[User:Yahoo|Yahoo]] ([[User talk:Yahoo|talk]]) 08:01, 21 May 2013 (PDT)

== Cite/Ref templates ==

So I'm getting around to trying to fix Cite web etc. This page, first two options are examples of the fixed Cite web template that I just fixed: '''[[User:Axius/Sandbox10]]'''. The 'archived' stuff is in small fonts. 

With regards to a template, by input I mean how we enter the data (how we use variables in the wiki code). By output I mean how its rendered when the page is viewed. Its important to get the input right from the start. We can have the output in any we want because it can be changed later on a mass scale easily. So the important thing in these templates is that we need to make our inputs right (1) separate out the variables (2) make the input as close to Wikipedia as possible. They have some automated tools that we can then use for ourselves.

I wish I had looked at the Reference archive in the beginning but its ok. We can get it right from now on and leave Ref archived as it is. I'll try to make a bot at some point to fix the references if possible. I tried looking at our old comments here [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sahabah&oldid=79399] but I didnt read all of them.

The [[Template:Cite web]] is ready for linking to websites. I thought we could have two archive links to make it even safer but thats too much trouble (making two archive links for each link) so one is ok.

We also need to standardize any other things that we reference although I dont think we have much of those (books, journals, left most column 'source' on this page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_templates]).

With regards to the output for Cite web, those changes were easy to make in this case. So thats that for Cite web, I think that's sorted. Or let me know if you want the output changed in any other way (oncer again its the first two options here: [[User:Axius/Sandbox10]]). Its just like what we talked about except I made that archived font smaller. Like you said you didnt like all that junk in the output so that should help even further. In the link title, I do see double quotes in Wikipedia template but thats not a problem as again, thats the output and we can change that to anything we like. The way Wikipedia does is usually some kind of universal citation method that they've spent time on deciding (time went into that decision) so as I said we should try to follow Wikipedia if possible unless it looks bad or doesn't make sense.

The 3rd example has an Author. Do we use that variable? If that shows up it shows the author in the beginning. This is probably APA citation style.  

The 4th example has a Date field. Do we use that? Thats the variable that we want if we want to tell the author when the news link was written. The author and date are not displayed like how we have. If you want I can move those around but it'll be some trouble finding out. Best case is if we're not using those two in any case.

For the '''blue quote''' boxes: I'll use a separate template for that because it will be too much work trying to do both with one template.

So this is about the lines in the quote boxes whenever they contain links. Are the variables the same? For example see the 'New' one here in the Quote section: [[User:Axius/Sandbox10]]

Right now it has the same format as Wikipedia. Its all in one line but I can break that out like we have (in the Old section). There's the author first and the date in brackets and so on. Its different from what we have. But this is the output which I can change. We can have it like we do and have the link first.

So my questions are
* Is the format always author, publisher, date
* what are the variable fields that you use? For example we'll have link and title of course. Publisher, date and Author, does that cover all of them?

In the new way you wont be using commas to separate fields anymore but using the variables. For example old:
:Dina al-Shibeeb, Al Arabiya, May 24, 2013
New would be something like
:author = Dina al-Shibeeb | publisher= Al Arabiya|date= May 24, 2013

The use of variables helps us out later for replacing dead links and for changing output formats. Its best if variables you need or use area already exist on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_web]. There's a lot of them available. In the end I can make new buttons for Cite web and this cite web quote. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 17:11, 26 May 2013 (PDT)

::The order for the regular citations are (1) author (2) title (3) publisher (4) date. So could it be made to look like how we discussed previously on my talk page? Something like this:

:::Nick McCarthy, "[http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2012/10/23/birmingham-jihadists-plotted-to-cause-maximum-carnage-in-name-of-allah-court-told-97319-32086702/ Birmingham Jihadists plotted to cause maximum carnage in name of Allah, court told]," Birmingham Mail‎, October 23, 2012 ([http://www.www.com archived])

::If you look at any page on the site, you'll see I always make sure to include an author name (if available) and date. Without those, it isn't much of a reference, and IMO is only a step above using naked URLs. 

::There are additional variables, depending on what is being referenced. There's probably many of them but it would be impossible to prepare for all of them. Certainly, there should be an extra variable after the publisher variable. So it would be (1) author (2) title (3) publisher (4) extra variable (5) date. 

::For example, this would be needed for citing fatwas or pages from MEMRI:

:::"[{{Reference archive|1=http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/7137.htm|2=2013-04-19}} Jordanian Journalist: The Jews And The American Right Are Behind Boston Bombing, Just As They Were Behind 9/11]," MEMRI, Special Dispatch No.5278, April 18, 2013
::[[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 18:35, 26 May 2013 (PDT)

Ok, how's this: '''[[User:Axius/Sandbox10]]'''. I think I got it done. I see there's a 'series' variable that can be used for the MEMRI case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_web. The example is number 6 on the sample page. For our case it shows the series first and then the publisher, is that ok? I think its fine as it is, not too bad. The series is not used often or is it?

Also see #7 which has a quote variable. Wikipedia had the quote with no italics but I did it so its italics for us and stands out.

I havent thought about cases where we link to our own articles or a saved screenshot. We'll have to check those too. Or will this current Cite web cover all the cases?

If this one is OK I can work on the one for Quotation boxes. We want to keep the same input format (same variables) but the template will be different (like {{citewebquote ...<nowiki>}}</nowiki>) and will have a different output.  --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 12:28, 8 June 2013 (PDT)
:Hi Ax! Is there any way to make the 'series' come after the publication and the quotes to come before the reference? Either present order doesn't make sense to me. About the image etc., I have no idea. I think there are too many variables in how things are cited to have one template to cover everything. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 22:50, 8 June 2013 (PDT)
::Ok I got that fixed. We'll see with time if there's anything else that needs to be there. This template cite web is only for using refs when there's a link involved (external link) so I guess we'll see what else we need later. Let me know and I can add additional variables. I'm understanding the code of the template now. So that means we should start using cite web now. It will be nice to have the variables sorted and have a secondary link (original or the archive). Here's one example ([http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammad_Qutb]) where you added something after the cite web (''see page 6''):
:::<nowiki>{{</nowiki>cite web|author=John C. M. Calvert|url=http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2007-6.pdf|title=The Contexts of Religion and Violence|publisher=The Kripke Center|date=2007}}; see page 6
::Comes out to be:
:::{{cite web|author=John C. M. Calvert|url=http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2007-6.pdf|title=The Contexts of Religion and Violence|publisher=The Kripke Center|date=2007}}; see page 6
::So something like that will also work for rare cases. But if you have to do anything more often I will create a new variable. More uses of the template here (let me know if you see any problems - I hope not): [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Citation/core]]
::I'll work on the quote box template now.
::So yea I had restored that story ([http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Syed_Muhammed_Mustafa_Ali_-_Former_Muslim]). A user might use a proxy which is why the IP might not match. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 06:30, 9 June 2013 (PDT)

:::IP lookup says it's probably not[http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/69.31.101.35]. I don't know why you be so lenient with testimonies. It'll only end with us getting egg on our faces.[[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 07:44, 9 June 2013 (PDT)
::::We cant say anything about the IP. Proxies change all the time. I dont think there was any other problem (other than language). This one is fine. Its actually pretty good (he says he's a teacher and one from Saudi Arabia so thats even more important/interesting). Our disclaimer is there so its ok. Our criteria is whether it will help someone leave Islam or not, whether others can relate to it and so on. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 08:09, 9 June 2013 (PDT)
::Ok, I got the Quotebox cite web ready too: [[Template:Cite web quotebox]]. Its used just like the cite web and will put in a line break automatically. The line break was the only difference but it was enough to require its own template. I added two extra buttons in the toolbar in the end for Cite web and cite web quotebox (also in edit tools where you had the Ref archive template). I'll see if there's anything else that we should do. [http://www.webcitation.org/ WebCite] is down right now, maybe I did this just in time. It will probably be back soon, probably temporary downtime (hopefully).
::When you use Web Cite or any other archivsite, you can paste in the complete URL of the archive and then the date of the archive (did a [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_the_News&diff=91035&oldid=90951 test]). Although you dont need to put the archive date. It will put it itself if its today's day, so you just need the full archive URL. We'll see how this works or if it needs other changes/fixes. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 11:42, 9 June 2013 (PDT)
:::Can we move the author somewhere after the URL? Then the template can be used in External links sections too e.g [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Fake_Anti-Muslim_Hate_Crimes_and_Other_Lies#External_Links]. So it would look like: ''URL (archived), author, publisher, date''. Considering that the link is the primary/main object in a cite web template and also the quote box shows the link first and the author is actually on the 2nd line. I dont see wikipedia having a template for making external links [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#How_to_link]. If we use the cite web in both the Ref tags, and the External links, this is probably better because (1) both these places will look consistent where a link is involved (2) we can also put in Archive links and Cite Web is flexible enough that if we only have the main link, or if we also had the archive link (examples 1 and 2 [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Template:Cite_web/doc here]) it would work well in both of those cases, as well as in cases where there's more information.
:::So in summary I think we need to think about how we want external links to look like in the External Links section, and how we can make it so links look the same whether they are used a Ref, or are present in the External links section. For the EL we have sometimes used:
::::[http://www.ddd.ddd Website Title] - Publisher (Date)
:::But I dont think its a consistent method that we've used and we dont have to stick to that even if it was. The problem there is that there's no easy way of putting in an archive link. So if we use a template, we make it easy. Now if we use the same template for External links and Refs, we have made it easier for editors to deal with external links whether they are in the EL section or are used as Refs. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 14:04, 9 June 2013 (PDT)
::::Sorry for the late reply. I'm a bit busy at the mo. I haven't taken it all in yet, but the two main ref templates look great. I don't know about the external links template. Author names almost always come before page titles. It would look really odd if it didn't. External links are nowhere near as uniform as references are. Sometimes it's just the page title, sometimes it's title and publication, and other times it's simply a description of what is linked to. What about another cite web template especially for external links that consists of two variable: (1) text on blue link (2) text after blue link?[[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 00:08, 10 June 2013 (PDT)
:::::Ok I'll see if I can make another template for external links. Tell me how you did [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Muslim_Statistics_-_Crime_and_Prejudice&diff=91077&oldid=91070 this] edit. When I use the same edit text, the archive date gets resolved. Could you do this small test for me in a sandbox: Click your link in the Edittools below which will produce the template (2nd link in 'Insert Quote). Use anything for the URL, title and archive URL. Thats all that you should use. Save the page and when you edit the code, you shouldnt see 'subst' in the date field but the actual date. I'll do this test right now:
::::::{{Quote|{{cite web quotebox|url= http://www.google.com|title= Google|publisher= |author= |date= |archiveurl= http://archive.org|archivedate= 2013-06-10|deadurl=no}}|This is the quote}}
:::::End of test. If that doesnt work, could you clear your browser cache, just to be sure there's nothing odd anywhere, although that shouldnt matter for this. I'll be back later.
:::::Test works for me. As you can see from the Edit's code, the archivedate gets filled in auto. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 05:38, 10 June 2013 (PDT)
::::::I did that [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User%3ASahabah%2FSandbox2&diff=91084&oldid=84281 edit] and you're right. Not sure what happened last time.[[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 05:48, 10 June 2013 (PDT)
:::::::I made [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Muslim_Statistics_-_Crime_and_Prejudice&curid=12585&diff=91089&oldid=91088 another edit] and the problem has returned. It doesn't happen on my sandbox pages.[[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 06:11, 10 June 2013 (PDT)
::::::::What browser are you using? I'll do some tests myself too. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 09:44, 10 June 2013 (PDT)
:::::::::I'm using Chrome. Stopped using Opera a while ago because it would add random text to edits.[[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 09:48, 10 June 2013 (PDT)
::::::::::I found out. It says the Subst does not work inside a Ref tag. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Substitution#Limitation]. 
::::::::::We actually dont use that variable (in our discussions we thought we did not want it displayed, to make it look cleaner). Wikipedia does by writing out ''"archived on YMD"''. So I fixed this by removing the requirement for this variable. I think that should be fine. Its secondary information and is not that important. So it can be used but its not a requirement and either way wont have any effect on the way we use it for the output. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 17:34, 10 June 2013 (PDT)
:::::::::::External links is also ready. Examples at: [[User:Axius/Sandbox8]]. This helps too as we dont have to worry about formatting and now we also have the option of putting the archive link there as well. The output format matches for example, the links found here: [[Fake_Anti-Muslim_Hate_Crimes_and_Other_Lies#External_Links]]. So yea I guess I finally did this cite thing. Anywhere else where some kind of automatic formatted could be used? Cant think of any, I guess this is it for now. 
:::::::::::Do you like the quotation marks for the URL. Thats how Wikipedia had it but we werent using those (for example[http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Fake_Anti-Muslim_Hate_Crimes_and_Other_Lies#External_Links]). That does imply that the URL title is shown as it is originally and was not modified so maybe thats a good thing to have the quotation marks in there. Its up to you (again this is a difference in the output so this can always be changed to go either way at any time in the future and affect all locations easily). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 19:02, 10 June 2013 (PDT)
::::::::::::Thanks. Everything looks good. Yeah, I like the quotation marks. It will be useful for when reader copy/paste stuff on forums. If I think of anything else, I'll let you know.[[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 19:13, 10 June 2013 (PDT)
:::::::::::::Ok. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 19:14, 10 June 2013 (PDT)
:The Islam/U series was imported through donations [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Join_Our_Team#Donations]. Thanks for fixing that. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 14:30, 13 June 2013 (PDT)
::Okay. No probs. :) but i'm not finished yet :( [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 16:51, 13 June 2013 (PDT)
:Here's a sample bot edit [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=User:Axius/Sandbox23&diff=91549&oldid=91539]. Still checking everything, doing tests and I'll make a backup before I do that for all pages. This fixes the URLs but its hard to get the publisher, author information as well (varied formatting). But if only the URL's are done as is done here, that too is ok. Basically the difference in appearance is that its adding quotation marks to the URL title as the new template does, and then there's an (archived) link. So the change is minimal but the template is new. Great if it all works out becuase there's about 700 pages using it. [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Reference_archive&limit=500]. The bot edits will be marked bot by default. You know who started this, it was that IP (ha). I want to find what tool he/she was using so we can use that too, to switch the deadurl=yes if needed. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 21:55, 16 June 2013 (PDT)
::Okay, I understand now. But isn't there a way to put the archive link at the end like the other cite ref template?[[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 22:15, 16 June 2013 (PDT)
:::Not with the current method. I'll check. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 22:27, 16 June 2013 (PDT)
::::Thanks. The extra lines (-) that are being replaced by quotation marks shouldn't matter too much. I can manually edit them out. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 22:34, 16 June 2013 (PDT)
:::::I could get the bot to remove those dashes too, that would be too many to remove manually. But first I have to find if its possible to move the archived link at the end for these cases. I'll see. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 04:57, 17 June 2013 (PDT)
::::::Also wondering if any of this can be made easier. Would it be better, say, if only cite web had to be used and if it was used in the source (like cite web quotebox), we just say "usedinquotesource=yes". Just thinking. I'm thinking from a new user's point of view and make it easier. If its in the source, right now its cite web quotebox but that makes people think it could used anywhere inside the quotebox but thats not true actually since it can only be used in the source section. Cite web's normal usage stays as it is. Previously I had said I would not want to combine them because its a lot of work but I could try. The other idea is to rename cite web quotebox to 'cite web quotesource'. In my opinion it would be less confusing if we had one cite web, and we only do "usedinquotesource=yes" and then it switches to that mode when its used in the Source.
::::::Let me know if you any suggestions about this or anything else, or any other bot work that could be done. Sorry, still not done with this cite ref thing but hopefully we will. Getting there. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 05:31, 17 June 2013 (PDT)
:::::::If you could get the bots to remove the dashes, that would be awesome. About cite web, the output for both kinds is great now. They look real neat and easy to read. So as long as they remain looking the same, I think either of your ideas is fine. Renaming cite web quotebox to 'cite web quotesource' is obviously the easier option. On the other hand, we do also have the quote= option on the cite web template, so new users may confuse it with that.[[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 16:57, 17 June 2013 (PDT)
:In this code in this page [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islamic_Inventions%3F_How_Islamic_Inventors_Did_Not_Change_The_World], there's places where the empty comment code (<nowiki><!--  --></nowiki>) is found at the end of a ref:
::<nowiki><ref>Professor David J. Leaper - [{{Reference archive|1=http://web.archive.org/web/20071111074025/http://www.ewma.org/pdf/fall01/04-WoundClosure.pdf|2=2011-02-08}} Wound Closure Basic Techniques, Scientific paper presented at EWMA Stockholm 2000] - The European Wound Management Association<!--  --></ref></nowiki>
:I'm thinking I can take this out, or do you need it? I haven't checked other pages but is it used on other pages too? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 12:58, 23 June 2013 (PDT)
::Yeah, it's fine to remove them. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 13:05, 23 June 2013 (PDT)

== Front page? ==

I think http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Parallelism_Between_the_Qur%27an_and_Judeo-Christian_Scriptures should go on the front page under Information on the Qur'an. Of the topics in the In Depth Studies category, it is the most obvious one that is not yet on the front page. There is some content here such as sanhedrin 37a that would leave a strong impression and is very interesting in its own right and there's nothing else on the front page directly about Quranic borrowing. <small>&mdash;The preceding [[WikiIslam:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:‎Lightyears|‎Lightyears]] ([[User talk:‎Lightyears|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/‎Lightyears|contribs]]) {{#if:17:57, 7 June 2013|&#32;on 17:57, 7 June 2013|}} </small>
: Sure. I'll add it now. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 18:06, 7 June 2013 (PDT)

== New article to be released ==

Hi Sahabah,

please release new article QHS on dogs:
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Pes_a_isl%C3%A1m_(Kor%C3%A1n,_Prorok_Mohamed_a_isl%C3%A1m%C5%A1t%C3%AD_u%C4%8Denci_o_psech)

it´s only about dogs, because Czech republic is european Nr.1 in keeping dogs (10 mil Czechs have 1,5 mil. dogs) so it will be for Czech specifically very interresting topic.

Thank you,
[[User:Animus|Animus]] ([[User talk:Animus|talk]]) 09:30, 6 July 2013 (PDT)

:Sure, no problem. But I noticed there are a few empty sections at the bottom: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Pes_a_isl%C3%A1m_(Kor%C3%A1n,_Prorok_Mohamed_a_isl%C3%A1m%C5%A1t%C3%AD_u%C4%8Denci_o_psech)#Chov_ps.C5.AF_jako_dom.C3.A1c.C3.ADch_mazl.C3.AD.C4.8Dk.C5.AF I'm not sure what they are. Do you want to finish them first?[[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 09:56, 6 July 2013 (PDT)

==bringing structure into "QHS: Women" ==

Hi Sahabah,

please have a look on Google translation of czech mirror of "QHS: Women".

I tried to bring more clear and standartised structure. Please let me know, if I can also get the english original restructured like that.

Please don´t care about confusing Google translation, it is just for your understanding.

[http://translate.google.cz/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://wikiislam.net/wiki/%25C5%25BDeny_a_isl%25C3%25A1m_(Kor%25C3%25A1n,_Prorok_Mohamed_a_isl%25C3%25A1m%25C5%25A1t%25C3%25AD_u%25C4%258Denci_o_%25C5%25BEen%25C3%25A1ch)%23Proch.C3.A1zej.C3.ADc.C3.AD_.C5.BEena_znehodnot.C3.AD_.28anuluje.29_modlitby long translate link]

Thank you
A.
[[User:Animus|Animus]] ([[User talk:Animus|talk]]) 12:23, 8 July 2013 (PDT)
:Hi Animus. I had a quick look and it looks great. Yes, please do go ahead and restructure the English page. Thanks![[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 20:03, 8 July 2013 (PDT)

Hallo,

it did know I get no allert if ou answer here. I will check it from now.

Thank you :-)
[[User:Animus|Animus]] ([[User talk:Animus|talk]]) 13:21, 9 July 2013 (PDT)


Hi Animus. I'm replying here as well, in case you miss it on my talk page. I had a quick look and it looks great. Yes, please do go ahead and restructure the English page. Thank you! Also, in the future, are you okay with me just replying on one talk page? This is normally how we do things here. We keep discussions on a single page (the talk page it was started on). [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 20:08, 8 July 2013 (PDT)
:Animus, nice work on this page, makes more sense for example "Menstruation" was a main heading before. Thanks for fixing it. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 07:06, 14 July 2013 (PDT)

Hi,

I ravised that, please check.

Question: Should these three stay where they are, or should be added into Menstruation now?

5.2.3 A Menstruating Woman Is Not Allowed to Recite the Qur’an
5.2.4 A Menstruating Woman is Not Allowed to Stay in the Mosque
5.2.5 Menstruating Women are Not Allowed to Perform Tawaf

Thanks
[[User:Animus|Animus]] ([[User talk:Animus|talk]]) 09:24, 22 July 2013 (PDT)
:hi Animus, the previous version looked better in my opinion so I reverted it. About Menstruation I was saying that before you made all those changes (the large number of edits you made before), Menstruation was a main heading for a lot of topics but you fixed that, so thanks for doing that and for improving this important QHS page. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 09:30, 22 July 2013 (PDT)

==Fake Islamophobic hate crimes==

I know of a lot more Fake Muslim hate crimes, but I can't be dealing with working out how to make them all work in your table. Please put them on: <small>&mdash;The preceding [[WikiIslam:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:HateHoax|HateHoax]] ([[User talk:HateHoax|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HateHoax|contribs]]) {{#if:10:05, 15 July 2013|&#32;on 10:05, 15 July 2013|}} </small>

<!-- http://fakehatecrimes.org/media/153
http://fakehatecrimes.org/media/180
http://fakehatecrimes.org/media/181
http://fakehatecrimes.org/media/184
http://fakehatecrimes.org/reports/136
http://fakehatecrimes.org/media/209

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/man-cautioned-following-bomb-security-4803983

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10093568/The-truth-about-the-wave-of-attacks-on-Muslims-after-Woolwich-murder.html

http://www.lutontoday.co.uk/news/local/cops-say-edl-not-linked-to-attacks-1-2559458 (Muslims were arrested, article doesn't say it though)

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/07/muslim-arrested-in-mosque-arson-case.html

http://www.thelocal.se/40882/20120516/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2169510/Photographer-stars-cleared-race-assault-Muslim-woman-supermarket.html

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/local/wandsworthnews/10014895.Man_sentenced_for_racist_graffiti/

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/muslim-community-fears-revenge-attacks-3412455#.UYZ56zoPbc8.twitter (read last sentence)

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/muslim-dad-finds-severed-pigs-3660675#.UZEz_NXPCiE.twitter

http://www.thelocal.fr/20130618/muslim-woman-miscarries-after-veil-attack

http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/crime-court/victim_of_racist_attack_in_willesden_claims_brent_police_are_lazy_1_2260251

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2360194/Inept-arsonist-set-trying-burn-takeaway-tried-claim-injuries-cooking-oil-spilt-home.html -->
Hi. I had a quick look through the list and most of them are either already on our list, not related/suitable, or are not proven hoaxes. I will take a closer look later. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 12:32, 15 July 2013 (PDT)

== Kalki ==

Many muslims thinks that Kalki who was predicted in Bhavishya purana is actually muhammad. But it's wrong, see:-

www.answering-islam.org/Hoaxes/kalkiavatar.html

So you can mention it somewhere in this site. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 02:35, 16 July 2013 (PDT)
:Hi. It's already there as an external link.[[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 02:37, 16 July 2013 (PDT)

== Misc ==

I thought [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Article_tasks this] template will help us know what/where the outstanding tasks are for each article. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 04:55, 24 July 2013 (PDT)
:Nice! That's an awesome idea. I'll link it to the relevant pages later on today.[[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 04:59, 24 July 2013 (PDT)
Someone just emailed ''"I'd like to ask about a "random article" button. Please consider it. It appears on wikipedia.org, and could be an incredible hit for wikiislam. "''

The link for that is: [[Special:Random]]. I've actually thought its not so useful in Wikipedia because for them it turns up random content which we may not be interested in but it does show people the variety of content that exists. If we add it, it could be the 5th link after Recent changes or the 4th, pushing it down, or in the 'Toolbox' where its not so bad because then it wont be pushing other more important things further down. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 14:44, 28 July 2013 (PDT)
:Adding it to the toolbox so it doesn't push other things down, like you said, sounds okay. If it's okay with you, I'll do it now (revert if you think it's not right - I don't really feel strongly about it either way). [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 16:14, 28 July 2013 (PDT)
::Lol. I just checked MediaWiki:Sidebar and the toolbox is not there. I don't know how to edit that.[[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 16:17, 28 July 2013 (PDT)
:::Yea there's no easy way to edit that, I checked. I guess we can leave it like that. I'll add a link on the Site map or somewhere else. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 16:50, 28 July 2013 (PDT)
Here's a great idea on the RU site to have a handy section of links at the bottom that shows related articles very quickly [http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=2&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://ru.wikiislam.net/wiki/365_%25D0%25B4%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B5%25D0%25B9_%25D0%25B8_%25D0%25BC%25D0%25B5%25D1%2582%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BD%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B2_%25D1%2586%25D0%25B8%25D0%25BA%25D0%25BB&usg=ALkJrhjiYyLN0SBNbLgXXYdhEyfiHaaD3g]. Makes the links to related articles more accessible. I'm thinking we have stuff like that for some pages (maybe). A few days ago I was trying to get from [[Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Aisha|QHS:Aisha]] to "refutations of pedophilia" and it took me a few clicks/some effort to get there. (I clicked [[Islam and Pedophilia]] in the Hub box and then I scrolled down to find [[Refutation_of_Modern_Muslim_Apologetics_Against_Aishas_Age]]). So yea, if something like this is done it can be a helpful navigational tool. Wikipedia sometimes has 2 or three boxes at the bottom (with show/hide options so they're not all on at the same time). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 16:22, 29 July 2013 (PDT)
:I don't like that idea at all :( I think it's a bit ugly and overkill when we have the categories, core and hub pages. The first word on the Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Aisha page has for years now linked to "[[Aisha]]". From there you can get to the "Refutation of Modern Muslim Apologetics Against Aisha's Age" without having to scroll at all.[[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 01:45, 30 July 2013 (PDT)
::Those navigational aids take an extra click. I've seen/used these kinds of boxes on Wikipedia. For example at the bottom here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Navigation_templates#Advantages Advantages] from Wikipedia. It doesnt take up much space for a smaller group of articles and it only has benefits in my opinion. 
::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:A_navbox_on_every_page#Benefits_of_navboxes] says: 
:::''The success of navboxes can be seen in this (uncontrolled) study of this navbox, which has shown that in the month following its creation, readership of the articles contained within increased by 8.5% (an average of 406 views per article) and editing of these pages increased by 37% from the month prior to its creation.''
::So yea it could be nice. Not a high priority but I'll work on it sometime for a certain group of articles and we'll see how it looks. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 04:24, 30 July 2013 (PDT)

The external link at [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Web_Usability WikiIslam:Web Usability] says extra clicks do not put people off. Also none of the advantages mentioned by Wikipedia apply to WikiIslam. 

{{Quote||reduction of clutter in that area of the article before "References" and "External links",}}

We don't have any clutter because we have hub pages and a link to the core article in our "see also" section (rather than how Wikipedia often has a giant list under it).

{{Quote||compactness of the template compared to a standard list or table, in the case of many links,}}

Doesn't apply because we have hub pages and a link to the core article.

{{Quote||if the most immediately related links are kept under "See also", the reader has a better idea of scope,

less directly related links are out of the way or in some cases hidden by default,}}

These two don't really apply to us because we don't have millions of articles about different subjects like Wikipedia. Hub pages link to directly related articles and the core link to less directly related articles.

{{Quote||ease of maintenance in updating the template as articles get created or deleted,}}

This is not true for us. It will only make things harder for us by giving us another template to remember updating.

{{Quote||aesthetically pleasing appearance to many users,}}

That is relative to who you ask. Many will not find it aesthetically pleasing.

{{Quote||new articles in a subject area immediately gain the basic link structure of existing related articles, eliminating the need for many editors to individually build up their own links and rewrite background material.}}

Doesn't apply because we have hub pages and a link to the core article.

{{Quote||when a new article or an older article that was orphaned is placed in a navbox, the page instantly has a large number of links to it}}

Doesn't apply because we have hub pages and a link to the core article.

The extra clicks is a good thing, but it's possible that it will effect us even less because every link that would be in those new nav boxes are already covered by our hub pages and link to core articles.

In the past we actually got rid of similar templates (i.e. the old "inconsistencies" table that was on the top right-hand side of some articles). [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 04:55, 30 July 2013 (PDT)

:As I posted before, I think the numbers speak for themselves :):
::''The success of navboxes can be seen in this (uncontrolled) study of this navbox, which has shown that in the month following its creation, readership of the articles contained within increased by 8.5% (an average of 406 views per article) and editing of these pages increased by 37% from the month prior to its creation.''
:We'll continue the debate when I make a sample and see how it goes and then I'll respond to these points at that time. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 09:31, 30 July 2013 (PDT)
::'''"As I posted before, I think the numbers speak for themselves"''' I responded to this already. I don't think it's as simple as that. '''"We'll continue the debate when I make a sample and see how it goes".''' If you're going to go ahead and do it anyway, I don't see any need for further discussion. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 10:08, 30 July 2013 (PDT)
:::I dont see a response to the statistics data or did I miss it? --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 10:13, 30 July 2013 (PDT)

::::I said:
::::{{Quote||The extra clicks is a good thing, but it's possible that it will effect us even less because every link that would be in those new nav boxes are already covered by our hub pages and link to core articles.}}
:::::Thats not a response to the 8.5% more viewers and 37% more edits. It looks like the clicks dont matter (although personally I think they do). So the numbers in the study is what I'm talking about. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 10:39, 30 July 2013 (PDT)
::::::In that comment, I wasn't referring to the number of clicks needed to get from one page to another. I'm referring to the same 8.5% you are.[[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 10:46, 30 July 2013 (PDT)
:::::::Oh ok now I see. So you're basically saying we wont get 8.5% extra viewers because we already have Hub links and Core article links and people are clicking there. First there's no proof that we wont get more views. Wikipedia has those kinds of links also (e.g. the USA [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#References article] has a portal link at the left and they have sister project links).
::::::: Plus you have to think about usability. These are two different kinds of user experiences: You get to the bottom of the page and (1) you have to take your mouse over to the Hub page links or the Core articles (which should still exist - of course I'm not saying those should be taken away; they organize information in a different way which is also useful), they click and get to those new pages and then find out what other links exist. (2) The other user experience is seeing the related links right there visually at the bottom. Its a much easier user experience. Comparing the two is like taking away the template on the top-right of the QHS series and only having a Hub box at the bottom, or the categories at the bottom and so on. It makes the page very powerful and impressive when you show the breadth of available/related knowledge in that manner. This is what I mean by usability - having more links available, making it easier for people to find out what else exists
:::::::Where our eyes have to travel and the path of our mouse is important. Here's an interesting [http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2006/07/label-placement-in-forms.php study] about online webforms. They studied how much eyes have to travel and how much work people have to do while filling out forms online. [http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2006/07/images/test1.jpg This image] (test 1) shows they have to work a lot, there's lots of movement and "figuring" out. So this web form is harder to fill out for people. [http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2006/07/images/test3.jpg Test 3] has another arrangement and it was the best and quickest.
:::::::So where our eyes have to move, where we move the mouse and so on matters. And when its just an extra inch or even one, there's more good than harm. 
::::::::''The first word on the Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Aisha page has for years now linked to "Aisha". From there you can get to the "Refutation of Modern Muslim Apologetics Against Aisha's Age" without having to scroll at all.''
:::::::That user experience is: (1) On the [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Aisha QHS page] I found a certain hadith which I wanted. Now I scroll back up (note, I have to be an established user to know this, because a new user will not know that the word Aisha at the top is linked to a page which has the link I need). Click on that Aisha link and then click on the Apologetics article. (2) I scroll down, see the box and the article I want and click directly on the apologetics article. Its easier. People always want to see related articles visually rather than click through them.
:::::::So again, the increase in 8.5% readership cannot be already accounted for because we dont know thats happening. And we still have '''37% more editing''' - that's what the study says and its huge. If there's a potential for even 10% more editing, why not. It makes things easy for editors (asides from having to update when there's a new article and how often is that, and how easy it is to update the navbox). They can quickly see related articles at a glance and jump from article to article very easily.
::::::::''This is not true for us. It will only make things harder for us by giving us another template to remember updating.'' 
:::::::Those are easy updates and due to the 8.5 and 37%, they're worth it. Every addition on a template like that will make every page connected to it more impressive and powerful.
::::::::''That is relative to who you ask. Many will not find it aesthetically pleasing.'' 
:::::::What do you not like about it? Its only an extra inch or two at the bottom, a table of related links. 
:::::::The fact that editing increased by 37% is enough evidence to show they can be a good idea. So I'll make some and see how it goes. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 16:24, 30 July 2013 (PDT)
::::::::We had a long discussion on this. So you did miss the 37% more editing statistics, which was one of my main points. Is this discussion settled then? I need an answer to this. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 19:10, 7 August 2013 (PDT)
:::::::::What discussion and what answer? You are continually telling me you are going to do it anyway, so my opinion on this matter is clearly irrelevant to the outcome. That is not a discussion, and that is why I do not care to respond to your previous points. Do what you will.[[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 19:56, 7 August 2013 (PDT)
::::::::::Wow, ok. Alright then. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 20:05, 7 August 2013 (PDT)
I started the bot to do that, yay. [[Special:Contributions/WIBot]] Works great. For example [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Beat_your_Wives_or_%22Separate_from_Them%22%3F_%28Qur%27an_4:34%29&diff=prev&oldid=95080 diff]. I did some random checks and looks like it was ok. Its done with that now (that was about 300 edits). So if there's edits with a certain pattern to it, I can try to get the bot to do it.

I had to stop the work on the bot/Citeweb stuff for now because it wasnt doing it correctly and those are harder to fix, but I'll continue that again sometime. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 05:30, 3 August 2013 (PDT)
:Nice! If anything else like that comes up, I'll let you know. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 08:52, 3 August 2013 (PDT)

== Pending edits and typos ==

One my is edits is still pending, or was there something wrong with it? The quote from the edit you mentioned on my talk page is at [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/operation-of-police-powers-under-the-terrorism-act-2000-2012-to-2013/operation-of-police-powers-under-the-terrorism-act-2000-and-subsequent-legislation-arrests-outcomes-and-stop-and-searches-great-britain-2012-to-20 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/operation-of-police-powers-under-the-terrorism-act-2000-2012-to-2013/operation-of-police-powers-under-the-terrorism-act-2000-and-subsequent-legislation-arrests-outcomes-and-stop-and-searches-great-britain-2012-to-20] I tried to avoid using it due to the excessive length.

Also.. [[WikiIslam|Sepember]], [[Islam_and_Homosexuality|Consistant, calender, the the human]], [[Islam_and_Miracles|tatooing, concieved]], [[Islam and Propaganda|saleperson]], [[Islam_and_Science|traveled (2)]] [[WikiIslam:Frequently Asked Questions|may have be inserted by accident, have lead to, reasons we can not]].--[[User:Lemming|Lemming]] ([[User talk:Lemming|talk]]) 05:20, 28 September 2013 (PDT)

:LOL. I've been staring at the list of typos for a few minutes trying to figure out what it's meant to be. I get it now. Thanks for spotting them! I'll correct them now. I've now accepted that edit. I'll also look at that link you gave me. Thanks again! [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 05:30, 28 September 2013 (PDT)

== Muslim veil use in Crime ==

Can I create [[Muslim veil use in Crime]]? It will discuss and show how it is widely used tool in crime across the world.--[[User:Lemming|Lemming]] ([[User talk:Lemming|talk]]) 06:02, 28 September 2013 (PDT)
:Yeah, sure. That sounds great. I'll add an "under construction" template on the page once you create it, so it can be worked on. Thanks! [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 06:06, 28 September 2013 (PDT)

If you can help me on the page, we can look at doing a media gallery. I am still collating news reports, I still have a large sum of info to sort through and add. The citations & webcites will need to be fully complete.--[[User:Lemming|Lemming]] ([[User talk:Lemming|talk]]) 15:21, 31 October 2013 (PDT)
:Sure. No problem. I'll sort the references and archive the links. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 15:25, 31 October 2013 (PDT)

Hi do you think this go karting death can be added to [[Health Effects of Islamic Dress]]? - [http://www.ibtimes.com/fight-over-head-scarves-amusement-park-reignites-debate-307442][http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-04-08/head-dress-mishap-kills-go-karter/2599162][http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-04-08/head-dress-mishap-kills-go-karter/2599162][http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/3565615].--[[User:Lemming|Lemming]] ([[User talk:Lemming|talk]]) 15:38, 31 October 2013 (PDT)
:That's an interesting news story, but it wouldn't fit there. For now, I'll add it to our news archive. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 15:52, 31 October 2013 (PDT)

Thank you for checking my additions. To make things easier, just put the reason for removal or revert in the edit summary, if I disagree I will just leave you a message. This is why I don't mind pending changes protection.--[[User:Lemming|Lemming]] ([[User talk:Lemming|talk]]) 09:56, 3 November 2013 (PST)

I don't think the new page title is appropriate, Hijab does not cover the face so criminals tend not to use it, unlike the Burka and Niqab which most sources describe.--[[User:Lemming|Lemming]] ([[User talk:Lemming|talk]]) 14:35, 4 November 2013 (PST)
:The term "hijab" covers both the burka and niqab because it's not a particular item of clothing, but the observance of Islamic "modesty". [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 15:18, 4 November 2013 (PST)

== My edits ==

You changed my edits at [[Muslim Statistics - Health and Disability]] and took out that that nearly all British Pakistani's are Muslim. So this statement itself is no longer specifically about a religious group. It does not standalone like so many statements on this site. Yes, I know anyone researching in this area would know Pakistan is over 90% Muslim, but maybe not so with British Pakistani's.--[[User:Lemming|Lemming]] ([[User talk:Lemming|talk]]) 10:55, 4 October 2013 (PDT)
:Okay, I've reinserted that now. Thanks. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 12:18, 4 October 2013 (PDT)

== Editing help ==

Hi, can you add these to [[Muslim Statistics (Education and Employment)]]?

From [http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/research/research_report_73_religious_discrimination.pdf]

Nearly 18 per cent of Muslims aged 16 to 24 were unemployed and nearly 14 per cent of those aged 25 and above. By contrast, for Hindus aged 16 to 24 and those aged 25 and over, the unemployment rates were, respectively, 7 per cent and 5 per cent.

Among males aged 25 and above in England, at 42 per cent, Muslims have the lowest proportion of men in the four white-collar major groups of the year 2000 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) – in other words among managers and senior officials, professionals, associate professionals and technical occupations, and administrative and secretarial occupations. This compares with the overall England average of 50 per cent, while 63 per cent of Hindu males and 80 per cent of Jewish males are in these occupations. By contrast, 34 per cent of Muslim men in England work in semi-skilled and unskilled occupations compared with 18 per cent of Hindu men and 31 per cent of Sikh men. Weller, 2010: 908-09

ODPM report (Beckfordet al, 2006: 16) covering England and Wales, the main reason for Muslims’ low levels of economic activity was identified as being the very low level of participation by Muslim women. In Wales, just 33 per cent of Muslim women are economically active – less than half the female population. 

The following may fit somewhere too...

...religion itself does not entail significant levels of reported discrimination... It is ethnicity – rather (or more) than religion – which acts as a visible and ready conduit for disadvantage and perceived discrimination. (Li et al., 2008: 67).

--[[User:Lemming|Lemming]] ([[User talk:Lemming|talk]]) 04:47, 5 October 2013 (PDT)
:No problem. I'll take a look at those soon. Thanks. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 04:49, 5 October 2013 (PDT)

Do you think [[List_of_Genuine_Islamic_Inventions_Innovations_Records_and_Firsts]] should be added to the family of [[:Template:Muslim Statistics]] articles? Maybe next to Misc as "Notable Milestones/Records" or something along those lines? I think such a great pages needs more pages linking to it.--[[User:Lemming|Lemming]] ([[User talk:Lemming|talk]]) 14:52, 11 October 2013 (PDT)
:I also think it's a great page, but it's not a part of the Statistics series. However, I've just added the Statistics category to it. So that should help. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 15:18, 11 October 2013 (PDT)

== Deletion request ==

Please, delete [[Yass Yer va Quron]] (grammar error in title). The proper page is [[Yassi Yer va Quron]] (Flat Earth and the Qur'an). [[User:Shrimp|Shrimp]] ([[User talk:Shrimp|talk]]) 01:23, 10 October 2013 (PDT)
:Done. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 03:42, 10 October 2013 (PDT)

== Pew report ==

Hi, have the statistics of [http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extremist-groups/ http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extremist-groups/] and other media reports been added to their respective articles?--[[User:Lemming|Lemming]] ([[User talk:Lemming|talk]]) 11:22, 12 October 2013 (PDT)
:I've just had a quick look over it. I don't think we have, but I don't really see anything interesting there. We don't add every stat we come across (it would become impossibly long and boring). [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 11:37, 12 October 2013 (PDT)

== Main page and template help ...  ==



Hi ,Sahabah. You are very welcome!:

{{Quote||'''Translations'''


Тази  страница е достъпна също и на следните езици: Арабски , Азърбейджански, Чехски, Английски, Френски, Италиански, Испански, Турски, Узбекски. За други езици вижте менюто в ляво.}}

and:

{{Quote||Това е началната страница на WikiIslam(Уикиислям) за потребители на български}}

and:

{{Quote||Статии на български}}

and:

{{Quote||Карта на сайта - Използвайте, за да се движите из WikiIslam(Уикиислям) и да намерите необходимата ви информация}}


P.S.I respond here because I do not know where else <small>&mdash;The preceding [[WikiIslam:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Damaskin|Damaskin]] ([[User talk:Damaskin|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Damaskin|contribs]]) {{#if:05:04, 16 October 2013‎|&#32;on 05:04, 16 October 2013‎|}} </small>

:Thanks Damaskin! Yeah, here is fine. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 11:05, 16 October 2013 (PDT)

I've moved the conversion to: [[User_talk:Damaskin#Translating series]]

== Records ==

Some ideas for List of Genuine Islamic Inventions, Innovations, Records and Firsts
#Worlds leading producer of opium, the ingredient used to produce the illegal drug heroin.[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22150482] In 2007,  92% of all non-medical opium produced originated from Afghanistan.[http://www.unodc.org/pdf/research/AFG07_ExSum_web.pdf]
#Responsible for deliberately creating the world’s worst oil spill in history.[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/8812598/10-largest-oil-spills-in-history.html]
.--[[User:Lemming|Lemming]] ([[User talk:Lemming|talk]]) 07:52, 3 November 2013 (PST)
:Thanks. I'll add them in a moment. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 07:54, 3 November 2013 (PST)

Hi is [[Hijab and Crime]] completed now? I would like to complete it then continue to develop it.--[[User:Lemming|Lemming]] ([[User talk:Lemming|talk]]) 03:37, 8 November 2013 (PST)
:Hi Lemming. TBH it is not substantial enough as it is, nor does it read like a completed article. There is no rush or deadline, so I would suggest to continue developing it.[[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 13:33, 8 November 2013 (PST)
::What else is needed for it to be completed? It is quite a narrow topic.--[[User:Lemming|Lemming]] ([[User talk:Lemming|talk]]) 10:13, 10 November 2013 (PST)
:::I'm not sure. That Daniel Pipes article mentions a few historical cases, so, for example, a "History" section would fit well. I'll try to come up with some ideas and write some things. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 10:19, 10 November 2013 (PST)

=== More stuff ===
I want to add [http://www.iglhrc.org/content/civil-society-pressures-governments-successfully-reverse-discriminatory-vote-un] at a page, but not sure which one? From this source, we can say
:During a United Nations vote, whether "sexual orientation" is part of a resolution condemning extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. 93 countries supported it, none which were Muslim majority. But of the 55 that opposed it, 35 of them were were Muslim-majority. 44 other countries abstained or didn't vote. <small>Majorities according to Pew Report 2010</small>
Which page and section could this go to? One in [[:Category:Islam and Homosexuality]]? Or is another source and more context needed first?--[[User:Lemming|Lemming]] ([[User talk:Lemming|talk]]) 06:50, 23 November 2013 (PST)

:Okay. Thanks. I'll find a place to add it. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 12:24, 23 November 2013 (PST)

At the List of Genuine Islamic Inventions... page, under the Terrorism section, I think there is enough there to combine the 'first suicide bombings' into a single sentence of:
<blockquote>The first ever suicide bombings to occur inside the countries of Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Sweden, Tunisia and the United Kingdom, were all carried out by Muslims.</blockquote>
The details of the bombings themselves seem a little outside the coverage of what the article is trying to achieve.--[[User:Lemming|Lemming]] ([[User talk:Lemming|talk]]) 12:58, 24 November 2013 (PST)

:The reason why I provide the info that I do, is to show Islam was the motivation behind them. Otherwise, most of those entries would be pointless. Kazakhstan, Mauritania, Pakistan, Somalia, and Tunisia are all Muslim majority countries. If the suicide bombings were carried out for a reason other than religion, it would hardly be anything to write home about. It would only be common sense that the "firsts" were Muslim, since most of the population are Muslim. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 13:27, 24 November 2013 (PST)

Good, ''context'' is always important. With the images, would you agree or disagree that placing images on the right side of text is better than a gallery at the end?--[[User:Lemming|Lemming]] ([[User talk:Lemming|talk]]) 14:28, 29 November 2013 (PST)

:Hi. We try to avoid over-cluttering articles with illustrative images, limiting them to just one at the top-right of the page. Even if we did dot pictures around the article, it wouldn't exceed more than a handful. However, the gallery allows many more images to be placed in the page. Also, wherever appropriate, we would skip the gallery altogether and create a stand-alone image page. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 19:14, 29 November 2013 (PST)

==Qur'an and a Universe from Smoke==

Hi Sahabah,

I've wrapped up my article about the Qur'an and a "universe from smoke".  It's in my sandbox [[User:Atheistig/Sandbox2]].  I was thinking about adding it to the [[Islam and Science]] page down near the bottom with the other refutations of Apologist claims in section 5 : Science in the Qur'an.  Sound good to you?

:Hi Atheistig! Great. I'll take a look at it soon and move it to my sandbox for formatting fixes etc. Concerning the new articles you're working on; 

#The "Unreliability of the Hadith" article is not something that would be accepted. Admins have had a long discussion about this a while ago. The problem with it is the fact that such arguments are used by apologists to basically deny every bit of valid criticism aimed at Islam or Muhammad. And the truth is, the Qur'an is historically just as unreliable as the hadith. Our criticism of Islam is based on its own sources. All mainstream forms of Islam (Sunni-Shi'ite, i.e. about 99% of all Muslims) accept hadith. So, as far as we're concerned, hadith are a valid ''religious'' source and the historicity doesn't concern us.
#The "Historicity of Muhammad" article could probably be accepted as an essay attributed to you (we have quite a few essays, not many that are high quality. So a well-written essay from you would be appreciated). But not as a mainspace article. This is because such forms of higher criticism can be viewed sort of like "original research". There are lots of theories and claims but nothing set in stone. We, (as in "WikiIslam") wouldn't really like to comment definitively in support of one or the other. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 15:51, 14 December 2013 (PST)

:Oh ok, that's interesting.  Let me tell you a bit about where I was planning to go with the Historicity article and you can let me know if you think it might fit as a mainspace article or as an essay.  I was thinking of taking the reader through some of the evidence (or lack there of) from the first 2-centuries of Islam.  Basically showing non-Muslim references, archaeological findings (i.e. coins, inscriptions, etc.), and then early Muslim references (hadith, sura, etc.) and talk about what we ''really'' know about Muhammad and how we know it.  That's where the idea for the "hadith are unreliable" came from; mainly talking about how they are poor historical documents because they come late and even the most conservative muslims have to agree that 99% of all hadith from the 8th-9th century were considered forgeries or "not-authentic".  I was thinking of being PVN on whether Muhammad actually existed or if he was a myth invented by later Muslims.  Basically, showing the evidence and then talking about how each camp interprets that evidence. Personally, I'm convinced that Muhammad was a real person, as is the mainstream view among non-muslim historians.  But, I've been reading a few books about Muhammad as a myth and there's some interesting hypothesis in there.  Appreciate any thoughts you might have. <small>&mdash;The preceding [[WikiIslam:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Atheistig|Atheistig]] ([[User talk:Atheistig|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Atheistig|contribs]]) {{#if:11:12, 15 December 2013|&#32;on 11:12, 15 December 2013|}} </small>

::Okay. If it's simply documenting the available facts and remains neutral concerning any conclusions about Muhammad (basically letting the readers make up their own minds) it may fit in the mainspace. But obviously we'd have to make a decision once the article is nearing completion. I'm not well versed on this subject, but AFAIK the Qur'an is in a similar situation as the hadith literature with little evidence for its existence early on. So it would be great if that is covered sufficiently. Also, the fact that Muslims agree that there were a lot of forgeries may deserve a mention but it should not be given undue weight (since the article is covering the subject from a historical perspective, what Muslims believe is really not that relevant). [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 16:18, 15 December 2013 (PST)

== Edits ==

Hi why are my edits taking so long to approve, is there something wrong with them?--[[User:Lemming|Lemming]] ([[User talk:Lemming|talk]]) 12:11, 17 December 2013 (PST)
:I've now approved them all. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 03:55, 18 December 2013 (PST)

Hi can you put this on the correct page Persecution or Prejudice?

<nowiki>

{{Quote|2013|"'''In 13 countries around the world, all of them Muslim, people who openly espouse atheism or reject the official state religion of Islam face execution under the law...'''"

A first survey of 60 countries last year showed just seven where death, often by public beheading, is the punishment for either blasphemy or apostasy - renouncing belief or switching to another religion which is also protected under U.N. accords.

But this year's more comprehensive study showed six more, bringing the full list to Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/10/us-religion-atheists-idUSBRE9B900G20131210|title= Atheists face death in 13 countries, global discrimination: study|publisher= Reuters|author= Robert Evans|date= December 9, 2013|archiveurl= http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2F2013%2F12%2F10%2Fus-religion-atheists-idUSBRE9B900G20131210&date=2013-12-14|deadurl=no}}</ref>}}

</nowiki>

--[[User:Lemming|Lemming]] ([[User talk:Lemming|talk]]) 16:29, 20 December 2013 (PST)

:Hi. That's already been added on the Shari'ah page. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 16:36, 20 December 2013 (PST)

Hi, is there a suitable page for the graph from {{cite web|title= Fundamentalism and out-group hostility |url=http://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u6/koopmans_englisch_ed.pdf |publisher= WZB Mitteilungen | pages=2 | author = Ruud Koopmans | date = December 2013}} to be placed? A common argument is followers of Islam are equally bad as followers of Christianity. But this shows that isn't the case.

I am waiting for one my edits to @ Science Statistics to be approved, any chance of getting publishing rights? Most of my incorrect edits is information already placed elsewhere.--[[User:Lemming|Lemming]] ([[User talk:Lemming|talk]]) 10:56, 21 December 2013 (PST)

:Unfortunately no. But I've approved the stats now. Concerning the graph; because of their use of a ridiculous definition for "fundamentalist", the graph actually works against the point you want it to make. As has been pointed out by many people, if you asked those same three questions (about their level of belief) to Christians in the Americas, Asia or Africa, the difference between Muslims and Christians would be negligible. The problem with the graph is that, when referring to Christian fundamentalism most people mean Biblical literalists who think the Bible is inerrant or that the world was created in 6 days, but when referring to Islamic fundamentalism most people mean Qur'anic literalists who think gays, adulterers and apostates should be executed etc. That study obviously doesn't take this into consideration. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 13:55, 21 December 2013 (PST)

== Hi ==

I am planning following articles: Arabcentrism in quran, resurrection,  quran hadith n scholars: jinn.
Can i go ahead?? is there something like requested articles? [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 11:55, 28 December 2013 (PST)
:Welcome! You can work on articles in a sandbox (e.g. [[User:Saggy/Sandbox]], [[User:Saggy/Sandbox2]], [[User:Saggy/Sandbox3]], [[User:Saggy/Sandbox4]]). [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 11:58, 28 December 2013 (PST)
and yu will pass them afterwards??[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:24, 28 December 2013 (PST)
::Depends on many things. It may be accepted or it may not be accepted. Obviously we can only make a decision after we've read whatever it is you plan to write. You may find it useful to read through our guidelines and help pages[http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Category:WikiIslam]. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 12:30, 28 December 2013 (PST)
:::What was wrong in my recent edits? <small>&mdash;The preceding [[WikiIslam:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Saggy|contribs]]) {{#if:13:36, 28 December 2013|&#32;on 13:36, 28 December 2013|}} </small>
::::Not strong or interesting questions. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 13:54, 28 December 2013 (PST)
:::::But r they answerable? <small>&mdash;The preceding [[WikiIslam:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Saggy|contribs]]) {{#if:14:00, 28 December 2013|&#32;on 14:00, 28 December 2013|}} </small>
::::::Refer to my previous answer. Please also sign your comments with 4 tides.[[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 14:23, 28 December 2013 (PST)

== Footer  ==

Are you ok with the last editor's username in the footer? For example:
: This page was last modified 16:23, 28 December 2013 by WikiIslam user Sahabah.
I think its a good thing mainly because it increases the chances of new people becoming editors. I remember going on a certain wiki which had this and I liked it. I felt more encouraged to be an editor. Lets try it for some time and see if it does anything for us. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 07:56, 2 January 2014 (PST)
:It might be worth giving it a try. But I don't think the same editor's name being at the end of most pages looks very good for the wiki.[[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 10:47, 2 January 2014 (PST)
::Yea it doesnt look at good as not having the text. Lets see if it helps in editing. We can try it for two months or so. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 13:41, 2 January 2014 (PST)