User talk:Sa.vakilian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seyyed is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

My New Signature: I've changed my signature since 1 November 2007. My former signature was Sa.vakilian and this is my current signature:--Seyyed(t-c) 04:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC) . In Persian dialect Seyed means the descendant of Prophet of Islam through Fatimah and also descendant of Imam Ali.

Archives
21 April 2006 - 16 September 2006 17 September 2006 - 31 March 2007 1 April 2007 - 30 June 2007 1 July 2007 - 30 October 2007 Singpost

Contents 1 Nice opening statement 2 Isaac Newton's religious views 3 WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007 4 Your Article Work 5 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007) 6 Thanks 7 Poll 8 Re: 9 Peer review of Hezbollah 10 Yazdanism 11 Irfan 12 Twelve Imams 13 Re:Invitation 14 Hezbollah peer review 15 Hezbollah copy-edit 16 Avicenna 17 Re: A comment for you 18 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007) 19 Thanks for the book. 20 WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007 21 Ali 22 Be Bold 23 Coordinators for Wikiproject Islam 24 Re: Hezbollah milestones 25 Strange RfD 26 Hi 27 Re: Inventions in the Muslim world 28 Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal 29 Hello 30 Al-Zaidi 31 Shia POV 32 Thanks 33 Shaam-e-Gareeba 34 GA Review for Aaron 35 Good to see you back! 36 expanding Muslim military history task force 37 WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter 38 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008) 39 Would you please... 40 Ali 41 Ali 42 Muhammad in Mecca 43 Systematic bias 44 Ali article assistance 45 Featured list and template 46 User:Auawise 47 GAR: Allah 48 userpage 49 Muhammad 50 Question 51 Review Ali 52 Muhammad 53 Ali 54 Image:Arrival_of_Imam_khomeini.jpg listed for deletion 55 Re:Muhammad 56 Thank you 57 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008) 58 Re: 59 Ali tag 60 Muhammad 61 Twelve Imams 62 Thanks 63 Proposal 64 RE:Ali 65 Inheritance 66 April GA Newsletter 67 Shia article 68 MOSIslam 69 Shia Islam 70 Copyright 71 Eek! Be careful editing comments 72 Tawhid 73 Backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user 74 WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter 75 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008) 76 Artistic depictions 77 WP:LOTM 78 Regarding the pictures 79 Tawhid 80 Infobox 81 Thank you 82 Re: 83 Ahl al-Bayt 84 Re: 85 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008) 86 Twelver template 87 Sources of Islamic law 88 Task forces 89 Adopt Me Please! 90 WikiProject Good articles newsletter 91 Imams' templates 92 Setting the foundations for future Islamic articles 93 Sources of Sharia

[edit] Nice opening statement

به نام آنکه جان را فکرت آموخت

There is a small error. It should be "Taught" instead of "thought" Eltemase dua Ali —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.18.190 (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isaac Newton's religious views

Hi there, I've given the second opinion that you asked for on the Isaac Newton article. Basically I think that it's OK so far as it goes, but it only tells part of the story, and that not very well. Isaac Newton's beliefs weren't really Christian, they were Hermetic. Which is interesting in itself, because it suggests that all the major religions have the same core beliefs.

I don't know whether you know much about Isaac Newton, but it's been speculated that he was put in charge of the English Royal Mint because it was believed that he knew how to turn base metal into gold. His alchemy was an attempt to re-discover what he believed that the ancients knew, but that we have now forgotten, which is not a particularly Christian view. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Article Work

Just to let you know, your article work in amazing! I wish I could be that good, but I am not. I am new to article writing, even though I have been editing wikipedia for close to a year. I hope that I get better at it:) Cheers!--SJP 01:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for bringing up that source. May Allah give you a blessed day:)--SJP 12:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Will you please re-explain what you want me to do? I don't understand what you are asking. Thanks.--SJP 16:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure:) I will sometime today. Currently I am working on making some requested articles for wikiproject:palestine. Because of the lack of good sources, I am having some trouble making good articles. They are just stubs. Have a nice day!--SJP 17:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have checked the article for spelling. It is fine. No spelling errors:) I will soon look for sentences that can be improved. If I find one I will change it. May Allah give you his peace in abundance.--SJP 20:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

Hello. I have decided to start a poll to get a better idea of what the consensus is on the hezbollah article. The poll is on the Hezbollah articles talk page. Thought you might want to know so you could include yourself in it. Cheers!--I wish you a happy Veterans Day 22:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

Dear Sa.Vakilian,

Sorry for my delay. Hope everything is going well with you. Due to some personal issues, I can not edit wikipedia regularly for some time. Whenever I come back from my wiki-vacation, I'll certainly help with that article. Sorry again,

I had a look at the Twelve Imams. It actually looks very good. The information inside the table may need sourcing though.

Best wishes, --Aminz 11:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review of Hezbollah

I've nominated Hezbollah for peer review since last week but it wasn't so useful. How can I request participants in military wikiproject to help us with it.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Seyyed. Here are the instructions. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yazdanism

On Template:Twelvers, I am considering narrowing the branches to four, which would be Usoolism, Shaykhism, Akhbarism, and then Yazdanism, or what is also known as the Cult of the Angels. Yazdanism will include as its branches Alevism, Alawism, Ahl-e-Haqq (Yarsan), and Yezidism. This will correlate with a large rewrite and organization of the Yazdani articles. Tell me what you think. --Enzuru 14:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There are several references that both refer to these groups as both Muslim, and non-Muslim. Even among themselves, there is controversy whether to refer to themselves as such, however a majority of them do. It seems to be a theory that all three of these groups are manifestations of an older Kurdish religion, however, mainly Kurdish writers espouse this, such as Kurdistanica, so it might be nationalist propaganda. I will have to research this to be sure if I should consider them all 'Yazdani' or not. And you are correct, none of them follow Jafari fiqh, however there has been a recent movement among a minority of Alevi to do so under the influence of Usooli scholars. I'm not sure about your question about 12 Qutb Sufism, are you referring to Twelver Sufism? From my knowledge, most Twelvers in pre-Safavid Iran belonged to this Yazdani group, however the Sufis seemed to parallel alot with Sunni Sufis in basic texts and doctrines. For example, in the oldest treatise on Sufism, Kashf al-Mahjub, a special section has been set aside for proving Sufism within the tradition of the Ahlul'bayt. Out of curiosity brother, what is your background? I am an Usooli Twelver who does taqleed under Sistani. How about yourself? --Enzuru 15:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I was not aware that this belief was common in pre-Safavid Iran, thanks for teaching me this, however I know it has some resonance in modern day aqeedah. For example, Hazrat Allamah Tabatabai made a reference to it in a work of his before, claiming that both sects had a divine purpose only mystics could understand. Also, the Ahmadiyya movement has a similar belief as well, though they are an offshoot of Sunnism. --Enzuru 15:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, insh'Allah when I learn Farsi I'll read it for sure. --Enzuru 15:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done further research on the Yazdani issue. These sects are not related, and Yazdanism is a fictitious name used by primarily Kurdish nationalists to describe the three unrelated religions, of which only two share Twelver aqeedah. --Enzuru 20:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irfan

Yes, we should do something like this. It is important to highlight the Irfan tradition in Shi'asm. However, many Shi'ahs feel that Irfan is a separate tradition from Sufism, and quote hadith about the Imams (AS) cursing Sufis (these however were heretical Sufis). I am unsure if we should spark this controversy. --Enzuru 15:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, you may go ahead and do that. Also remember however, the Irfani tradition does not exist in Zaidism nor Ismailism, but rather Ismailism simply interacted with Sufis such as the Nimatullahi order, which the Ismaili Imams such as the Aga Khan III were members of. So, while a Sufi tradition may exist in this groups, an Irfani one does not, so we can't apply the "Shi'ah" label to them, but only the Twelver one. --Enzuru 16:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twelve Imams

Soon. Let me go through it and correct some minor English errors. I'll inform you when I do it. Please also check the talk page. --Enzuru 23:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Invitation

Alaykum Salaam I have added my name. Inshallah will continue to contribute. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 08:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hezbollah peer review

I've added some comments. Feel free to respond. CG (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hezbollah copy-edit

Thank you for your kind comments on the copy-edit. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avicenna

I posted the following on Talk:Avicenna is in response to your recent comment. AlphaEta 02:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Seyyed, you seem much more knowledgable about this subject than I. I added a note to the infobox which quotes the following from Kahn's book (p. 38): "Like their rulers, Avicenna's family was likely Sunni, though some later critics have said it was Shiite." If you think your source more acurately depicts our knowledge of the subject, please make changes as you see fit. The infobox currently says Avicenna was Sunni. Thanks, AlphaEta 02:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)"

Thanks for the link to Corbin's book (which should be a useful resource). I assumed that Avicenna was both a falsafa and a Mutazili supporter. Did you mean that he cannot be both a Mutazili and a falsafa at the same time? Jagged 85 (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: A comment for you

Hi. You said something about a polymath from Qom. I'm a bit curious to know who exactly you mean? You're English is fine by the way. Salams. Jagged 85 (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the book.

It's quite excellent! By the way, please check the Talk:Twelve Imams page. --Enzuru 18:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ali

It seems something went wrong when you saved this edit. I have now reverted you; could you go and redo the part of the edit that you intended to make? - Andre Engels (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be Bold

Thank you for joining WikiProject United States presidential elections. I understand your concerns but remember to Be Bold when editing. If you feel something needs to added to the Political positions of... pages, go ahead and add it. These pages don't have a set standard and any information that could be added to them would be welcome. I know that CFR.org is a very good source for information and anything from there definitely should be represented in these articles. If you have any more concerns feel free to ask.--STX 22:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinators for Wikiproject Islam

Salam Alaykum. How are you?

I think about establishment something to coordinate Wikiproject Islam like what we have in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators. What's your idea?--Seyyed(t-c) 09:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Are there people who are interested? You should go through elections first. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should establish something and then go through election. --Seyyed(t-c) 14:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should establish something and then go through election. Itaqallah believe the project is not active enough to have such a thing. Please answer to this comment.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Seyyed for this late reply as i've not seen it until now. I believe Itaqallah is right. It wouldn't make sense having coordinators while the project is not really active. My idea is that you and Itaqallah can still be informal coordinators. Once that would work, then you can move forward later on to set up formal 'coordinators elections'. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Hezbollah milestones

Updates to the {{ArticleHistory}} template are generally handled by User:GimmeBot. The template should be automatically updated the next time the bot updates Talk:Hezbollah. --Allen3 ^talk 13:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strange RfD

Salam again,

Please pay attention to here. I'm surprised. I know AA and Striver but I can't understand such decision. How can it be possible to vote for Delete all or Keep all. The cases should be checked one by one. I can understand why they've vote to delete them but I think it's important to have some of them here. Some of them like Hadith of the door to knowledge is an important hadith and we discuss about it in Talk:Ali#The city of knowledge.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And I should add that we can't merge them in the main articles like Muhammad and Ali while both of them about 90kb length.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll check that later on today or tomorrow. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

When we try to resurrect these articles we should aim at a closer conformity to WP style--limited quotation, use of modern Islamic & nonIslamic commentaries, discussion in the way English-speakers expect it. This will add to the usefulness of the articles here, & it will be recognized. DGG (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i know about isnad. But I am not sure the discussions on that for a particular hadith in detail will be considered encyclopedic here--it would need to be summarized drastically. What people in general are interested in is the religious or legal or sectarian implications & interpretations. DGG (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To Seyyed. Re delete all. Well, i think it is common practice to nominate a set of similar and retaled-articles for deletion. However, your point about could still be valid and the most appropriate venue to voice that is at the Wikipedia:Deletion review. As for the merge issue, i believe that it can be done but please be aware of WP:NOT and WP:NOR, the 2 main policies involved in the AfD. In other words, you can still merge some of the content of the deleted articles into others but that should not include parts where WP:NOT and WP:NOR is an issue. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi Bro. I'm not active here any longer, and i don't log on to messanger any more. Have a good day :) --Striver - talk 23:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Inventions in the Muslim world

Salam bro. I think the Inventions in the Muslim world article seems ready for a good article nomination, but I'll need some feedback. If you think it's good enough, then I guess we could nominate it? Jagged 85 (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I see that quite a bit of research has obviously gone into this! Great job! That being said, it does look a bit more like a list than an article, so I would recommend going to WP:FLC instead. I'm not as knowledgeable on the featured list criteria, but at first glance, I would think that this has a pretty good shot at a nomination there,... Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal

Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [[1]] Jmegill (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Nice to meet you too. I have made edits in Iranian Revolution and Khomeini articles recently, but they're intended as cleanup. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Al-Zaidi

i commenced the discussion on the talk page. please bring Al-Zaidi to the talk page, it seems as though he isn't interested in doing so however. ITAQALLAH 19:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Salam Seyyed, could you please tell Al-Zaidi to start discussing on the talk page again? He is misrepresenting EoI, introducing needless sections, and all the while giving the impression he doesn't understand the concerns being raised. ITAQALLAH 18:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shia POV

Hi Sa.vakilian, I know that the Shia and Sunni POV regarding Muhammad's first encounter with Gabriel is different. As far as I know, shias don't hold that revelation can come to someone but he doubts it. Therefore they think Muhammad was certain of his prophet hood from the beginning. Do you have any source for this? We can include it in the Muhammad article then. Cheers, --Aminz (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi Seyed,

Thanks so much for the beautiful barn-star!! Also thanks for the links to the biography of Muhammad. Hope you are fine and doing well!! Dar morede Ezra ham fekr konam dafeye digeh ke pishnehadesh bekonam vazesh behtar basheh.

Best,

--Aminz (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

One of my next projects is going to be Ja'far al-Sadiq. But I'd like to work on Cycle of poverty, Allah, dream and Fear (I almost rewrote anger and nominated as it GA, I'd like to do the same with Fear and other emotions). It would be great if you can help with any of these. Thanks, --Be happy!! (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shaam-e-Gareeba

Do you have any idea on what to do with this article? I thought I'd ask you since you're a shite Muslim. I thought it could be AfD'd since I cant find any sources talking about it but you might know better. Before I blanked this page, it was a copyright violation of another website. Someone else told me about it so I'm passing it on to you. Feel free to AfD if you like. They're giving a suggestion that it could be redirected to Day of Ashura. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 09:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Since there's no content on it (everything was a copyvio), I just redirected Shaam-e-Gareeban to what you told me: Mourning of Muharram. Please proceed as you think is appropriate. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review for Aaron

This is a reminder that you tagged this article with the {{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good to see you back!

I saw some of your edits on my watchlist. Good to see you back :) --Be happy!! (talk) 06:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] expanding Muslim military history task force

I have been reelected coordinator and brought up the old discussion about expanding Muslim military history to the present day. This has been an issue raised by Muslim editors when the task force was founded. It would be great if you could help expanding the articles that present what makes Islams treatment of war effect especially the Muslim warfare. I have been reading a bit on the topic and can help you with advice, but feel myself not confident enough with my limited knowledge. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 5 - March 2008 February issue | April issue Project News There are currently 3,647 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 185 unreviewed articles. Out of 237 total nominations, 42 are on hold, and 10 are under review. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Ian Browne (cyclist), Tony Marchant, Reginald fitz Jocelin, Annie Russell, Brodie Croyle, and Jimmy Moore. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 13 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated! GA Sweeps Update Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues". During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now Featured Articles. Reviewer of the Month Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Wikipedia since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include: Blnguyen (talk · contribs) David Fuchs (talk · contribs) Derek.cashman (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Calbear22 (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Jackturner3 (talk · contribs) TimVickers (talk · contribs) VanTucky (talk · contribs) Wrad (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 185 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 9 new members that joined during the month of February: Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs) Canyouhearmenow (talk · contribs) Chrisisinchrist (talk · contribs) Ed! (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Kakofonous (talk · contribs) LOTRrules (talk · contribs) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) Nousernamesleft (talk · contribs) Did You Know... ...that the shortest timespan for a GA to be listed and subsequently delisted is 8 minutes? (The article is Project Chanology and currently listed on WP:GAR) ...that the current nominations system started on March 10, 2006? ...that in May 2006, number of GA surpassed number of FA? This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! One GA Requirement - The Lead Section By Geometry guy In this issue, we will focus on one of the requirements for good articles: a good article article should follow Wikipedia's guideline on lead sections. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help? The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Wikipedia is the way that embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new. This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Wikipedia supports both spellings. Wikipedia:Lead section is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points. The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current good articles may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't. So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions: Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article? Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph? Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting. Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead? If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of Wikipedia:Lead section. Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons. Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion! From the Editors Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA. OhanaUnited Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Geometry guy (News Correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Backlash (2007) • The Great American Bash (2007) • Pacers-Pistons brawl • Luke Ravenstahl • Jenny (Doctor Who) Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 214 articles (50 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 12 June 2008 | edit

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Would you please...

Salam Alaykum

Would you please substitute image:Ismaili flag.svg with Image:Panjetan.jpg in Template:WikiProject Islam which is fully protected. Thanks.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course the copyright situation of the new image should be checked. I found this on the web but I couldn't find the main source or the copyright situation of it.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Salam Seyyed,

The picture used at the template is Image:Shahada.svg and not Ismaili flag.svg. Is there any ongoing discussion regarding the pictures? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to change the main image. There is an image for Shia task force. It's name is Ismaili flag.svg.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ali

IMO the article falls well short of the Good Article criteria, for the reasons outlined on my talk page. This relates to the substantial unreliable source usage and the general skew of the article I perceive when reading it. Regards, ITAQALLAH 22:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ali

Salaam Seyed,

Eid shoma mobarak!!! The reason I added the "According to Shia tradition" was not to emphasize its being Shia. Just meant to add the "according to the tradition" part. I didn't notice that the source is not Shia. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I will try to add as much as I can in the coming days. Regarding Imam Ali being the first to believe in Muhammad, it might be good to mention that Ibn Ishaq, the first biographer of Muhammad, mentioned this. Later biographers like Tabari mentioned the three differing stories of Imam Ali, Abu Bakr and Zayd of being the first in parallel. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need to go into details; a brief mention that some of narrations do not place Imam Ali as being the first would be enough. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 08:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad in Mecca

Dear Seyed,

Happy Nowrouz! Thank you very much for the very useful comments. I agree with you that it has a lot of problems. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please let me know the source for the quote: ""Typical of this perspective is the attempt to understand the prophet true his circumstances, education and type of genius..." I am thinking of explicitly adding it to the article. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Seyed. I'll try to address the points you raised as soon as possible. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hallo, I have moved the Allah-GAR to the article's talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allah#GAR:Allah --Be happy!! (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Systematic bias

Hi Seyed,

My latest proposal is here [2]. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your observation. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ali article assistance

Hi Seyyed. Thanks for inviting me to help out with the Ali article. I would be glad to assist :) MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I still want to copyedit Ali a lot more. I will place the inuse tag at the top of the article, though. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured list and template

Walyakom salaam, nice to see you again. I certainly will pay attention to the list. Also, I need you to help me discuss this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Shia_Islam#Redesign_Controversy --Enzuru 07:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it's a good idea to add the quotes? As per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Twelve_Imams --Enzuru 07:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can send you an e-mail. What is your address? --Enzuru 19:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Auawise

is retired [3]. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAR: Allah

Hello! Yes of course I would be glad to give the article a look-over. Peter Deer (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering what the current status is for the GA nomination. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification to my previous question. I was also wondering if you would share your thoughts on what aspects of the article's prose need improvement. It will be best to add those comments to the article's talk page. Once again, thank you very much. Majoreditor (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] userpage

hi seyed ! your userpage doesn't seems to be ok with FireFox--mardetanha(/\/\ ()[-]$[- /\/) (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad

Hi Seyed,

A user named User:Mahmoud123 is repeatedly inserting this edit to Muhammad article . I am really desperate. The additions make no sense to me. Please take a look at [4]. Can you please help with that article. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Salaam Seyed,

Of course I agree that the article lacks theological views, not just Shia but also the way historical incidents are interpreted in the light of God's names(just as when the Qur'an mentions something ends it with "And God is ...". --Be happy!! (talk) 07:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Seyed,

I think it might be better not to get involved into the Shia-Sunni dispute much in the Muhammad article itself. What happened after the death of Muhammad may be summarized in a few sentences but these details seem to belong to another article. Also, you know, if we mention one detail, some may argue that we would require mentioning another detail e.g. that Abu Bakr led the Friday prayer. I just feel this may not be a good place to discuss these in detail... it may turn into edit-war I am afraid... --Be happy!! (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Seyed,

I am making some changes and am doing all my best to make the article remain stable and acceptable to everybody. If you do not agree with some of the changes, I am completely open to discuss them on the talk page. Best, --Be happy!! (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I want to summarize and add the following text to the "aftermath" section: [5].

Before adding it, I however have a personal objection to it: I may be wrong but your addition may present Ali as a greedy person who is after money and properties. Before adding the section, I wanted to discuss this with you and then add it. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Seyed,

I will definitely add the issue of Fadak. See I added this back [6]. But before that I would like a similar sentence saying Ali was asking for the ownership of Fadak because of something. For example he believed he could use its money for poor; do something for the Muslim community, etc etc. That's what I am looking for. Just to say that he wanted it puts him in a negative light and we know of Ali's life style wasn't greedy nor did he pay any attention to the worldly possession. I'd rather to add the sentence together with some explanation. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

See this is like the issue of successorship. Ali felt a responsibility for guiding the community/ not that he liked being a ruler; he wasn't unhappy that he couldn't rule; he was unhappy that he could not serve; because he cared about the Muslim community. I think this distinction is very important to be made. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

See, being for economic purpose is vague because one can interpret that he wanted to have a luxury life. Believe me, that's what comes first to mind of those who do not know the personality of Ali and his simple life-style.

I think it would be injustice to him to say that he insisted on Fadak without any clarification about what Ali thought of worldly possessions. In fact, we should explain what grand charity project he had planned in mind with the money of Fadak. To simply say that he insisted on having Fadak without any explanation would, I am afraid, either makes him look like greedy or immature. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If you say it was political, then it can mean a lot of things. How was it related to serving God? That's the whole point; saying anything beyond it would be injustice to Ali. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Seyed, you are more familiar with Shia sources. If you can find one that talks about Fadak in a way that a person who doesn't know anything about Ali wouldn't be misled and then we can summarize it. As of now, please let's keep this section [7] out. Thank you very much in advance. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I read the link. I must say, for that explanation, we need to go into details. What is at stake here is not Fadak, it is the position of ahl-al-bayt. So, it wasn't for the money of Fadak; this was symbolic. Now, I think it is hard to summarize it in a few sentences. But if one can faithfully do it, we can certainly add a few sentences about it. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with this addition:"The conquests led to absorption of Sasanyd empire and eastern part of Byzantine empire into Rashidun empire and the eventual conversion of the majority of Jewish, Christian and Zoroastrian peoples to Islam." as it may mean that the conversions were forced. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do have problems with your proposal. ", Fatimah, and al-Abbas asked Abu Bakr to turn over their property" - Turn over property to do what with them?

"became angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude until she died." - Why did she become angry? Because she cared about the ownership of the land and the wealth? Or because it had a symbolic meaning, not just possessing it? Or because she wanted to do something Godly with the land? --Be happy!! (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Seyed, let's discuss this later if that's okay. I am very sleepy now :P --Be happy!! (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Good! Just a suggestion. Maybe it would be good if you check it with Sunni editors before addition. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I added Abu Bakr leading the prayer per WP:NPOV policy. Hope you don't mind ;P --Be happy!! (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review Ali

Salaam,

I will take a look at it ASAP. No, unfortunately I have not read Motahari's book.. Best, --Be happy!! (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad

Seyed, what do you think of replacing

"According to Madelung, Ali himself was convinced of his special capabilities to serve the cause of Islam"

to

"According to Madelung, Ali himself was convinced of his special capabilities to serve the cause of Islam; in one instance, Ali publicity invited those companions who had heard Muhammad's statements in a placed named Ghadīr Ḵhumm during the farewell pilgrimage to testify on the square in front of the mosque of Kūfa."

Also, we add a sentence summarizing the following quote from Madelung:

In the lifetime of Muḥammad , his close kin enjoyed a raised religious status of purity recognised by the Ḳurʾān . As his kin (d̲h̲awu 'l-ḳurbā), there were counted the descendants of his great-grandfather Hās̲h̲im and, to some extent, the descendants of Hās̲h̲im's brother al-Muṭṭalib. They were, like the Prophet himself, not allowed to receive or to handle alms ( zakāt ) as these were considered unclean. In compensation for this exclusion they were entitled to receive a portion of the k̲h̲ums, the fifth of war booty reserved to the Prophet, and of the fayʾ [q.v.], property which fell to the Muslims without war effort. After Muḥammad's death, the establishment of the caliphate by Abū Bakr on the basis of a privileged position for the tribe of Ḳurays̲h̲ as a whole, and the confiscation of Muḥammad's property, deprived the Prophet's Family of the special status, as they were disinherited and lost their title to their Ḳurʾānic share of the k̲h̲ums and fayʾ . The Banū Hās̲h̲im vainly protested against these developments by refusing to pledge allegiance to Abū Bakr for six months. The disestablishment of the Family of the Prophet after his death was the ultimate motive for the rise of the S̲h̲īʿa.

Instead: We remove all the additions to the Farewell pilgrimage (because there is a wiki-link to ghadir khum above) and the Fadak related stuff (because it is a symbol of the changes Madelung is talking about in the above paragraph). Also, I suggest we remove the terminology and definition of "Seyed" because while true, it seems not directly related to the biography of Muhammad. How is that? --Be happy!! (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ali

Sorry for the delay. Having myself read the article, I think that right now the content is probably good enough for A-Class, maybe even FA, but that the writing would probably prevent it from being approved as such, given the occasional vagueness and occasional unnecessary length. I intend to make a copy of the article in my userspace and make such changes to it as I think called for there, and then you can review it and make any changes you wish based on the proposed changes there. Does that seem reasonable to you? John Carter (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Arrival_of_Imam_khomeini.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Arrival_of_Imam_khomeini.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 16:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Muhammad

Hi Seyed,

Thank you for your additions to Muhammad in Mecca. I edited it a bit. In the academic view, the hadiths are not the next source after the Qur'an on the events of the life of Muhammad; the biographies are. The hadiths are surely important but only after the traditional biographies. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

You have worked so hard to improve Islam-related articles in an unbiased and eloquent fashion and I am very grateful for the work you've done.

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I hereby award this barnstar to Seyyed for his tireless efforts improving Islam-related articles and reverting vandalism. Thank you for all your hard work! Peter Deer (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

I think your suggestion of editors from other side join editing the article and add something was a good suggestion :) The best way to move may not be removing the current content but adding what the editors think needs to be added. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sa.vakilian. I'm sorry that you're irritated at me. If I think the article isn't neutral because it caters too much towards a relatively minority perspective, then I think it needs to be mentioned. As for why I haven't been editing the article much, it's because I've been focusing on improving other articles such as Muhammad, Hadith, and so on. It's also because I'd rather avoid conflict where possible, and I feel that if I made the necessary changes that you would be too strongly opposed to them. I also don't wan't to give the impression that I'm trying to step on your toes or ruin your good work, so I thought I should put the improvements I feel need to be made on hold. But because the article has been nominated for GA, I thought I would put my own views about the state of the article on the table. You can't expect me to be making major changes to the article during a GA nomination, because that will make the article fail on the basis of content stability. Those are the main reasons why I've commented on the talk page instead of making the necessary changes. ITAQALLAH 13:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, my only interest is in producing a professional article on par with any neutral, scholarly treatment of the topic. My interest is not in inserting "Sunni POV" to balance "Shia POV." Both viewpoints have their place in the article, of course, but they should not saturate it or overwhelm it. ITAQALLAH 13:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ali tag

Apologies - I forgot about Ali as I've been obsessed with Qur'an recently. I actually want to make some more changes (cut down on repetition, 'Prophet', shorten sentences, better style etc.). I'll make a start just now. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad

Hey Seyed,

Here it is [8]!!

Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Twelve Imams

I've done a bit of copy-editing and tweaking with Twelve Imams, and as I'm no expert in Islamic theology, you might want to make sure I didn't inadvertenly change the meaning of something or cut something important out. Article is looking better though. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The references, table, and prose might need more cleaning, but I'll leave that to the reviewers at WP:FLC. As for your request, I'm not a member of WP:LOCE, and you might still benefit from one of their members taking a look at the article. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you very much Seyed for the barnstar!! --Be happy!! (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

Hi Seyed,

Could you please take a look at my proposal here [9] (diff [10]). Thanks in advance, Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Ali

"GA-FAIL: Jargon like hadith, Muhajirun et. need to be explained. al-shia.com, non-RS, still used as ref. Some parts needs to cleaned up and/or reduced significantly per MP. And considering concerns expressed about equal representation of Shia-Sunni views, thus Neutrality issues and other issues in "An outside view", Failing the article. The nominator is welcome to get a reassessment.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)" as left on article talk. If you disagree, please ask for a reassessment else sort those issues and renominate. Regards. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inheritance

Hi Seyed,

Please see my message on Muhammad's talk page. Please specifically pay attention to the two quotes I provided from Ali. Thanks--Be happy!! (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Seyed, I ask you, with good intentions, not to bring the Sunni-Shi' dispute into Muhammed article. Imad marie (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please explain what is wrong with neutrally adding what happened if it is relevant and the sources agree on that? --Be happy!! (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Amin, don't you think that it's kind of misleading to call "Fadak" the "Inheritance" of the prophet? I believe that the Fadak issue is more about the Sunni-Shi' dispute than it is related to the title of the section: "Inheritance". Imad marie (talk) 06:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Imad, as far as I know, Abu Bakr responded Fatima and Ali that "The prophets leave no inheritance" rather than arguing that Fadak was not an inheritance (to best of my knowledge but I have not researched this in detail). But I personally agree with you that the significance of Fadak is not simply because it was inheritance; the issue is more complex and the Seyed's version does not do justice to the matter as I explained on Muhammad's talk page. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also expanded the Farewell Pilgrimage section. But I have not un-hid the Ghadir Khum stuff until we all reach an agreement. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Seyed, the Sunni-Shia dispute is not relevant here, it is the issue of doing justice to Ali. Please see my comment here [11] Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April GA Newsletter

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 6 - April 2008 March issue | May issue Project News There are currently 3,868 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 267 total nominations, 57 are on hold, 13 are under review, and 2 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: A4232 road, New York State Route 63, Great American Boycott, First Great Western, Duck Soup, Sanja Matsuri, Code of Conduct (affiliate marketing), Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway, Aliens (film), and Roanoke Regional Airport. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (27 articles), Sports and recreation (25 articles), Transport (24 articles), Music (19 articles), War and military (19 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Religion, mysticism and mythology (16 articles), Literature (14 articles), World history (14 articles), and Video and computer games (14 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 12 articles up for re-review. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of March, a total of 92 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 74 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 18 were delisted. There are currently 14 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. Congratulations to Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs), who sweeped a whopping 51 articles during the month! Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) also deserves congrats for sweeping a total of 26 articles! Reviewer of the Month Dihydrogen monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for March, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen monoxide hails from Brisbane in Queensland, Australia, and has been editing Wikipedia since April 6, 2007. He has contributed to 8 Featured articles and is an avid reviewer and contributor to the Good articles program. Other reviewers should check out his Noob's Guide to GA Reviewing. Congratulations to Dihydrogen monoxide! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of March include: GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Limetolime (talk · contribs) Malachirality (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Wrad (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 195 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 13 new members that joined during the month of March: AndreNatas (talk · contribs) Dank55 (talk · contribs) English836 (talk · contribs) ExplorerCY (talk · contribs) JayJ47 (talk · contribs) Mastrchf91 (talk · contribs) MBK004 (talk · contribs) Million Moments (talk · contribs) Neparis (talk · contribs) Nicholas Perkins (talk · contribs) NimiTize (talk · contribs) PGPirate (talk · contribs) Zenlax (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! To delist or not to delist, that is the question So you’ve found an article that, on the face of it, does not merit its good article status. What next? Especially where there are many glaring issues that need addressing, it’s tempting to just revoke its GA status and remove it from the list, but although we are encouraged as editors to be bold, this approach (known to some as "bold delisting") is not recommended good practice. There are many reasons why a listed article might not meet the assessment criteria—it’s always possible that it never did, and was passed in error, but more likely the criteria have changed or the article quality has degraded since its original assessment. Either way, we should treat its reassessment with no less tact and patience than we would a fresh nomination. This, in fact, provides a good starting point for the delisting process. Approach the article as though it has been nominated for GA review. Read it and the GA criteria carefully, and provide a full reassessment on the article talk page. Explain where and why the article no longer meets the criteria, and suggest remedies. Having explained why the article no longer meets current GA criteria, allow its editors time to fix it! In keeping with the above approach, it may help to treat the article as on hold. There is no need to tag it as such, but give editors a reasonable deadline, and consider helping out with the repair work. Bear in mind that more flexibility may be required than for a normal hold—the editors did not request or expect your reassessment and will probably have other projects taking up their time. They may not have worked on the article for months or even years, and at worst the article may have been abandoned and its authors no longer active. As always, communication is the key. It sometimes helps to post messages to relevant WikiProjects (found at the top of the article talk page), or to contact editors directly (this tool is useful for identifying active editors for any given article). Only once the above process has run its course, and sufficient improvement has not been forthcoming, is it time to think about delisting the article. Communicate your final decision on the article talk page, even if there was no response to your reassessment and hold, and take the time to fill in the various edit summaries on the article talk and GA list pages to ensure the delisting is transparent and trackable. If you have any doubts about your final decision, you can list the article at Good article reassessment or contact one of the GA mentors, who will be happy to advise. Article reassessment is perhaps the single most controversial function of our WikiProject, and the one with the most potential to upset and alienate editors. Yet it is one of the most necessary too, since without the ability to revoke an article’s status we would be unable to maintain quality within the project. However, if we approach reassessment sensitively and with the goal of improving articles to the point where sanctions are unnecessary, we will ensure that delisting is the last resort, not the first. Delisting instructions From the Editors As we near the 4,000 Good Articles milestone, the project continues to grow and to gain respect in the Wikipedia community. Nevertheless, we continue to have a large backlog. If every member of WikiProject Good Articles would review just one article each day during the month of April, the backlog would be eliminated! Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) EyeSerene (Article) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Backlash (2007) • The Great American Bash (2007) • Pacers-Pistons brawl • Luke Ravenstahl • Jenny (Doctor Who) Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 214 articles (50 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 12 June 2008 | edit

[edit] Shia article

Please stop reverting the good version of the intro to Shia Islam, "Seyed". The current version is both more informative and more aesthetic than yours. I see no reason why you should hold a monopoly on the article and only be satisfied with your own version. Leave it as it is. Salam. FiveRupees (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MOSIslam

Allah-u-abha.

I do not object. I believe, however, that the standard MOS on religious capitalization stipulates that 'Prophet' is capitalized, but 'the' is not. I think that this is good, maintaining an encyclopedic tone while still showing the proper significance of the term and giving it the due respect, if not the veneration that is entitled to Him. Does that seem amenable to you? May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Seyyed. I had brought up the issue of using the word prophet on the MOS talk page a long while back if you search through the archives. A lot of academic sources use it without problem, but the issue has always been whether it's a POV to use the descriptor Prophet. I just think the current guidelines save a lot of potential future disputes over the issue. ITAQALLAH 16:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shia Islam

Well, I don't know, Seyed. I will watch the article more closely and try to join the discussion if the issue comes up again. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Seyed, I left a comment on the user's talk page. Hope you are fine and doing well! --Be happy!! (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

I fixed the issue. It should be no less than a century old. Also, how were copyrights handled during the Iranian Revolution? --Enzuru 06:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eek! Be careful editing comments

I have had people yell at me for changing so much as one word of my own comment within minutes of writing it, because I didn't mark the change with a strikeout. So when I saw your recent change to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)‎ I freaked. I went and looked around and saw that User:Itaqallah‎ did make the comment on User_talk:Sa.vakilian that you copied to the other talk page.

16:40, 15 April 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Sa.vakilian‎ (→MOSIslam: comment)

Perhaps you could go back and make a note that you copied the comments from other talk pages? You could maybe tell User:Itaqallah‎ and User:Peter_Deer also.

People get so upset about anything that looks like manipulating other people's comments, because people have done things that appear just like this for really bad reasons. I don't want people screaming at you when you are just trying to organize a discussion. That's why I copied the evidence that it wasn't vandalism into this comment. Shenme (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Seyyed has my full confidence, and I trust him to act honorably even on my behalf, but thank you for your concern. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tawhid

Salaam Seyed,

I can not read Arabic unfortunately :( --Be happy!! (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user

There is currently a backlog of 52 users at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user. Please consider offering adoption to one or more of these users. Don't forget to change their {{adoptme}} template to {{adoptoffer|Sa.vakilian}}. Thank you for your continued participation in Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. xenocidic (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 7 - May 2008 April issue | June issue Project News There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Fighting Tommy Riley, Brock Lesnar, Cluj-Napoca, Wolf's Rain, Brian Kendrick, and North and South (TV serial). The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 17 articles up for re-review. GAN Reviewer of the Month Noble Story (talk · contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk · contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include: Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Gary King (talk · contribs) Jbmurray (talk · contribs) Kaypoh (talk · contribs) Lpangelrob (talk · contribs) Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Realist2 (talk · contribs) Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 212 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 17 new members that joined during the month of April: Affinity likely (talk · contribs) Climie.ca (talk · contribs) Edmund Patrick (talk · contribs) Eustress (talk · contribs) IMatthew (talk · contribs) Kironide (talk · contribs) Makeshift Thackery (talk · contribs) Mm40 (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Noble Story (talk · contribs) Peanut4 (talk · contribs) Realist2 (talk · contribs) SorryGuy (talk · contribs) Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) WBOSITG (talk · contribs) Will381796 (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! GA Topic Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article. There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth. Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories. Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Uncategorized good articles is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter. That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community. We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details. Did You Know... ...that there are slightly less than twice as many Good Articles as Featured Articles? ...that the total number of Good Articles and Featured Articles combined is 6,085? ...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses ) Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process. From the Editors There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page. Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (Article, GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Backlash (2007) • The Great American Bash (2007) • Pacers-Pistons brawl • Luke Ravenstahl • Jenny (Doctor Who) Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 214 articles (50 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 12 June 2008 | edit

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

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Artistic depictions

Would you have an issue of me putting an artistic depiction of each Imam (AS) on the Twelve Imams page? I think it would look nice. --Enzuru 05:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LOTM

Congratulations on what appears to be your first WP:FL. In case you do not know, we are running an experiment to choose the List of the Month and Lists of the Day for June. Feel free to nominate your list at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/Nominees/200807 for consideration next month to be the July LOTM or a LOTD. If you would like to support this experiment the most important thing you can do is come by and vote at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/voting/200806. My talk page is always open.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the pictures

Yes, it's true, I don't have exact evidence of it. But from my research I've come to the following beliefs: 1) These pictures are by Alevi, not Iranian Shi'ah. You can see these pictures in Alevi homes and Cem Evis. 2) They are most likely not within the last decade. They are very wide-spread. I do believe they have a possibility of being very old pictures, or perhaps in some sort of religious public domain, because the Alevi tradition itself is very old. I understand I need better argument than that, so I'll see what I can figure out. I may need to get a book on Alevi art. And lastly, I have edited these pictures quite a bit, so I am unsure how that will effect their copyright status. Any help you can give for this situation will be appreciated. --Enzuru 06:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed here in detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Shia_Islam

Remember that calligraphy means very little to a non-Muslim, even if it's fancy it is only particular to a certain piece. On the Ismaili template, it is easily a lion, on the Twelver template, it has twelve points and any non-Muslim can see that the pictures are rotated versions of each other. The Islam template itself doesn't have it, though possibly it will later. --Enzuru 19:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Join us here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Twelve_Imams#The_issue_of_pictures --Enzuru 23:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tawhid

Dear Seyed,

I agree with you. And I appreciate your comments on my talk page. I agree we should drop the GA nomination for now. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

User:Sikandros came up with a wonderful idea: he created a infobox for Imams. I changed the colours to match Template:Twelvers and added the ability to put a picture. You can see the infobox at Hasan al-Askari. --Enzuru 00:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There are ways we can make it more clear that the picture is fictitious. But this is Wikipedia, so we should attempt to add pictures and increase the content, that is what we strive for. On top of that, the pictures are considered fine by most Twelver and Ismaili, but everyone knows they are fictitious, just like most Christians know the pictures of Jesus are fictitious. These works were done by Shi'a, I think they do hold considerable merit. --Enzuru 09:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

On the Twelve Imams userbox (Hasan al-Askari and others) I added the 'fictitious depiction' description under each picture. The only issue is on Muhammad al-Mahdi one it has calligraphy instead, but I feel it is redundant to manually put fictitious depiction each time. Perhaps we will put a picture of al-Mahdi (AS) with light covering his face. --Enzuru 00:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Dear Seyed,

Thank you very much Seyed for the barnstar and thank you again for reviewing the article. There is certainly no deadline in wikipedia and we can nominate the article once it is sufficiently diverse.

Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Seyyed, concerning the improvements on Tawhid: I think there could be a little more explanation of the textualist stance, because the current section all too easily equates it mostly with tashbih - which is only one perspective. I do believe that bi-la kayf was a significant part of the textualist stance. There is much more coverage given to the other two camps, namely the Ash'arites and Mu'tazilites. The textualist stance was codified primarily by al-Shafi'i and Ahmad b. Hanbal, which is why almost all early Shafi'ites and Hanbalites were traditionalist in their stance (the Hanafite school, in contrast, was much more accommodating to Mu'tazilism). The article doesn't really mention that al-Ash'ari himself changed over the years and eventually sought the approval of the textualist Hanbalites of his time with his book al-Ibana. The early Asharites too were substantially different in what they accepted (i.e. much closer to the textualists) as compared to later Asharites, which may be due to the increased influence of Kullabism. While there were indeed some who went to excesses in affirmation of attributes in the textualist school, it was pretty much a minority. So it might be a nice idea to draw upon a larger pool of reliable sources to get a more complete perspective. ITAQALLAH 12:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

Assalamualikum (peace),

Regarding this. That's a good idea.Bless sins (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ahl al-Bayt

I've been working on cleaning up and improving the Ahl al-Bayt article. It's a real POV and broken wiki mess and if you have some spare time I could use your experience in editing such articles. I've been tagging up a lot of stuff that needs references and I'm going to be going through and looking through some of the regular sources for citations, and I'm also going to be trying to fix some of the broken and weird citations currently being used. Frankly, I could just use some general advice on making it not look ugly as sin and being gigantic walls of unreadable text. Peter Deer (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

I don't necessarily agree with the change or the standard of sourcing used, but like I said, we can work on fixing these minor issues even after GA. ITAQALLAH 13:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Twelver template

Salaam, what do you think of this modeling of the Twelver template: Template:Twelvers2 --Enzuru 01:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Salaam, thank you alot. I was thinking of it because of the Template:Judaism template. --Enzuru 01:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I will be looking into the Muhammad article shortly. --Enzuru 22:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not very knowledgeable on Islamic law unfortunately, I will have to stay out of this one. And can you join us here: [12]

[edit] Sources of Islamic law

In my humble opinion, the article does not meet GA standards and my concerns have not been addressed. I have taken it to Good Article Reassessment here [13]. Regards, Somno (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I realized I'd probably be more useful to the wikiproject if I had the talk page on my watchlist. I'll get to work on helping with that article as well, and it'd probably be a good idea if I went on the wikiproject page and asked for help with Ahl al-Bayt and Ahl al-Kisa. Peter Deer (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Task forces

So far as I can see it, there are basically two purposes for task forces. One is to potentially draw in additional members who are interested solely in a given area of the subject, and I tend to agree that isn't likely to happen with "Sufism". The other purpose is a similar, primarily "bookkeeping" one, to allow editors who are primarily, if not exclusively, in one area of the subject to be able to keep track, through the assessment statistics, of which articles relative to that particular area are in what condition, and allow them to focus on the subjects of particular interest to them. That has been a particular problem with the Christianity content, where individuals have only been really interested in their particular church, less Christianity in general. I don't know if the same is true of Islam editors, but if it is then it might make sense to have such a separate group. The only other group I could think might even be remotely justified, and I honestly can't say one way or another whether it would be, might be an Islamic theology or Islamic texts group, but like I said I don't know if there are enough editors to keep such going. I have found that, at least for editors when they are comparatively new, it can be useful to allow them to focus on their particular "brand" of a given faith first, which having separate assessments for denominations or whatever can often be useful. John Carter (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Theology has significant overlap with other groups, agreed. However, it also probably does not fall within the scope in its entirety of any of those groups, so it makes sense to be a separate group. Also, such a group could be a joint subproject with Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy, and perhaps get some more qualified and interested editors from that group. John Carter (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adopt Me Please!

The headline kinda speaks for itself. --Neoonyxalchemist (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good articles newsletter

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 8 - June 2008 May issue Project News There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Choctaw, One Night Stand (2007), Justin Tuck, Tristan Tzara, The Stake Out (Seinfeld episode), Impalement arts, Backlash (2007), Adelaide Rams, and Sam Cowan. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11) The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 4 articles up for re-review. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details. GAN Reviewer of the Month Giggy (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk · contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Eustress (talk · contribs) GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs) Also, with 19 nominations, Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) is the nominator of the month, followed by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) with 8 nominations submitted. Member News There are now 216 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 6 new members that joined during the month of April: Jack Bethune (talk · contribs) Jordan Timothy James Busson (talk · contribs) Limetolime (talk · contribs) Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Fan (talk · contribs) Mm40 (talk · contribs) Redmarkviolinist (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! New GA Review Process - Review Subpages In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable. When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category. When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter. Did You Know... ... that there are slightly more than twice as many Good Articles (4,266) as there are Featured Articles? ... that Giggy has some really neat and useful tools to assist reviewers in conducting their reviews? ... that there are ten experienced reviewers listed on the GA mentors list that can offer assistance or a second opinion in reviewing articles? From the Editors A GA working party has initiated discussion on ways to improve the Good Article project and processes. The goal of the working party is to come up with suggestions for improvement based on recent issues and concerns raised in the past, primarily in the wake of the Great Green Dot Debate of May 2008. The discussion can be found here. Members of the working party include: Dank55 (talk · contribs), Derek.cashman (talk · contribs), EyeSerene (talk · contribs), Giggy (talk · contribs), Gwinva (talk · contribs), LaraLove (talk · contribs), Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs), and OhanaUnited (talk · contribs). Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor) Giggabot, Giggy (Distributor) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Backlash (2007) • The Great American Bash (2007) • Pacers-Pistons brawl • Luke Ravenstahl • Jenny (Doctor Who) Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 214 articles (50 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 12 June 2008 | edit

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 02:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Imams' templates

Thank you so much, I will soon. And can you please see to the issue in concern here: Template talk:Ahlalbayt --Enzuru 04:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And here: Template talk:Fatimah --Enzuru 08:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Setting the foundations for future Islamic articles

Join us here: User talk:Enzuru/ConstitutionIslam --Enzuru 00:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources of Sharia

Asslamaulaikum,

Your opinion is needed here: Talk:Sources_of_Islamic_law/GA2#Result.

Oh BTW, you may want to archive your talk page, as it is rather long.Bless sins (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)