User talk:Syed Atif Nazir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Syed Ahmed Khan

Great job on the article about Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, and the pictures were excellent. I moved the last two to the page on Aligarh University.

DigiBullet 07:41, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image licensing

Hi, you uploded the image Image:Victoria gate.jpg, could you please attach an image copyright tag, there is more information here Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Thanks --nixie 09:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, could you add a image copyright tag to Image:Aligarh church.jpg? You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc. If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, you can look at the image copyright tags to get a better idea. I think the one you'd probably want is {{CopyrightedNotForProfitUseProvidedThat| reason}}. That tag says that it can be used for a non-profit, educational purpose only, with "reason" being any other restrictions (credit is given to the author, etc). If you want to get some ideas, go to the category for these images and see what language they use. Additionally, you may wish to consider going to Preferences and adding a link to your user and talk pages in your signature (it's just easier to simply click on that than to check the history for who wrote it). Maybe I'm just getting too lazy. =) --Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jama masjid.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] Image tagging

Hello. I've noticed that you've tagged a few of your images with {{mprotected}}. I think you may have meant to copy-&-paste something else. The {{mprotected}} tag is used by Admins to keep track of 'protected' images on the Main Page. I don't think you want that on your images. Please check and fix. Thanks. -- PFHLai 21:16, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Temasek JC.PNG

Hello Syed Atif Nazir, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Temasek JC.PNG) was found at the following location: User:Syed Atif Nazir. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your VandalProof Application

Dear Atif nazir,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that at this time you do not meet the minimum requirement of 250 edits to mainspace articles (see under main here). Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. Daniel 06:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have declined your request again. Please read the above. Daniel 06:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Climibing Guide to Mount Kinabalu

I was going to nominate this for speedy delete for the following reason:

This article more properly belongs on Wikitravel and is an example of OR and a travel guide.

Such an article would not notability guidelines and on top of that, it appears to be original research and your personal opinions, so I'm suggesting that you migrate the content over to Wikitravel instead of keeping it here. --BrokenSphere 16:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright status of Climibing Guide to Mount Kinabalu

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Climibing Guide to Mount Kinabalu. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://syedatifnazir.blogspot.com/ in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Climibing Guide to Mount Kinabalu with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Climibing Guide to Mount Kinabalu with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:Climibing Guide to Mount Kinabalu saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Butseriouslyfolks 05:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw your note on the article's talk page. To confirm your right to post this text, you need to either post a notice on your blog website that the contents are licensed under the GFDL or send the email to the OTRS system as noted above. I'm blanking the article per WP:CV pending completion of the process. Also, you might want to take a look at WP:NOT#INFO, particularly the discussions on travel guides and "how-to" guides. Thanks! --Butseriouslyfolks 07:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have sent the email to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org already. pls help to resubmit the article. ~atif - 14:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, you should be good now. Thanks for your contribution and quick action to confirm that it's your own work. Happy editing! --Butseriouslyfolks 01:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] please see WP:RS

answers.com is not a reliable source - yet here is the quotation from Britannica on that website: "The Arabic word islam means "submission" — specifically, submission to the will of the one God, called Allah in Arabic." ITAQALLAH 13:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

we have 2 conflicting meanings of Islam's roots from these 2 sites: About.com and USC-MSA, which one to believe? ~atif - 15:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Sefringle^Talk 23:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Quran

You're deleting stuff like "According to Jane Gerber, cowardice, greed, and chicanery are but a few of the characteristics that the Qur'an ascribes to the Jews." - you cant remove sourced stuff like this. Add in back in now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to paraphrase the sentence, it does not change the meaning! I do not like the tone you are using. However, as a symbol of goodwill I will revert the second para. ~atif - 17:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You're doing it wrong. This is the criticsm of the Quran section. What you have is the response to the criticism, it comes after the main material. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said criticism is "The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works.", its a matter of choice whether to put positive criticism first or negative first. However, let's divide it like other sections into 'criticism' and 'response'. That will be more consistent with other sections of this article ~atif - 02:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karen Armstrong

She is not a reliable source. She does not have qualifications. Arrow740 04:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks ~atif - 06:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You can read about this on the talk page of Muhammad. Arrow740 01:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Muhammad#Karen_Armstrong. User:Merzbow is a respected, level-headed editor, as you can see from his user page. He agrees we should not use Karen Armstrong. User:Aminz, a very active Muslim editor, agrees that we should not use Karen Armstrong. You are the only person pushing the use of her. As such you are editing against concensus. Please read WP:CON, an official wikipedia policy. Arrow740 05:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

nobody is criticising Merzbow as not "level headed" and Aminz as not a Muslim editor. I have a problem when she is wrongly accused by you and others. As I have repeated many times, tell us why she is unreliable, until now what you have not come up with anything except she is not a scholar or phd or other rhetorics. ~atif - 13:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow did. Did you even read the talk page? Arrow740 14:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I answered Merzbow in the Talk, that he should not cite quotes from controversial figures like Daniel Pipes. I am not a huge fan of karen Armstrong, but unfair accusations will not work on Wikipedia ~atif - 11:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: translation of my name to Hebrew - a request

I've been away for a couple weeks. Would you like just a transliteration or an actual translation of the names (i.e. finding equivalent names in Hebrew or something like that)? A simple transliteration would be:

A more accurate transliteration could be done perhaps if I knew how you pronounce it in the original language (Arabic?). Best, nadav (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armstrong

hello Atif, thank you for your message. i don't believe that Armstrong is being disqualified on the basis that her views are pro-Islam. there are many anti-Islam writers who are similarly unacceptable, such as Ibn Warraq or any other polemicist. the way we (should) judge sources is through what is specified at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. the first is a guideline, the second is policy. both state that we need to use reliable sources to back up the material we insert. the basic rule is: all sources are unreliable until their reliability is proven. so we assume that anyone writing about Islam isn't a reliable source until we see evidence indicating otherwise. the usual way editors on Islam-related articles judge reliability is by looking at where the work has been published, and what the credentials of the author are. we typically expect an author to have been trained in Islamic studies, and/or the publisher to be of high academic repute (i.e. University of Oxford press). reliability isn't always a black and white issue, however. there are other indicating factors for reliability, such as how frequently the book is cited in scholarly journals (and in what manner), or how highly the author is regarded by qualified academics.

though she may appear frequently in the media (as do right wing neo-cons), Karen Armstrong doesn't have the academic credentials (as far as i know), nor do i think she is of high regard in academic circles - although i could be wrong. in any case, if you have evidence to suggest that she is reliable, the best place to present it would be on Talk:Muhammad. i would recommend you check out more respected works like Montgomery Watt's "Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman" which should be easily available at most good libraries. regards, ITAQALLAH 16:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Itaqallah for your comments. Was away on a vacation. Her most of the books on are on non-Islamic topics and I have found them very knowledgeable. I have never read about her anywhere as "controversial", in fact have read praises about her for her work other religions as well, not just Islam (1, 2 etc.). As Aminz pointed out her scholarly contribution at Muhammad:Talk also, Why is she then rejected in Wikipedia? The authors who are rejecting her pick a point or two and make a sweeping conclusion that she is unreliable or "low-quality" etc. Regarding her Islamic views, She has a viewpoint which happens to be conflicting with conventional Orientalist view, I feel THAT is the reason for which she is rejected? I will put in more detail in support of her ~atif - 05:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Atif nazir! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Daniel→♦ 05:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images in userboxes

I have removed the fair use images in your userboxes, since logos can't be used in userpages, per WP:USER. Cheers. Miranda 04:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Miranda, but the images are allowed in the main Dell/HP articles? can you point which clause is it to ban the images? ~atif ^Talk - 04:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Muhammad

No, the reason you're reverting is that the fact that critics criticize Muhammad's sexual activities (with both slaves and wives) bothers you. The article discusses his sex with slaves very prominently. Arrow740 07:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

pls read the article again, its a small section talking about slave (Criticism_of_Muhammad#Ownership_of_slaves ~atif ^{msg me} - 07:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages

Use them. All you do is edit-war. There are no grounds for the tags, that's why Aminz hasn't responded in two days. Arrow740 07:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

looking at the history, I can say the same thing about you. not responding does not mean that he agrees to it ~atif ^{msg me} - 08:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Respond to my posts on the talk instead of edit-warring about interpretation of sources you don't have. Arrow740 09:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Aminz is already responding to your points, point is you don't get it. He has gone at length to explain. Learn to accept others' views. ~atif ^{msg me} - 17:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Your statements are obviously false to any third party. Arrow740 00:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

that's what you say, anyone who takes a quick look at Muhammad Talk can easily figure out what kind of edits you are known for. ~atif ^{msg me} - 02:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert warring

Hi Syed,

Please be more careful in the future and discuss disputed changes rather than reinstating them repeatedly; you broke the three-revert rule at Criticism of Muhammad, but I protected the page instead of blocking because I felt that trying to foster talk-page discussion was the best option in this case, and blocking would not have helped discussion. But please be mindful of the rule in the future (and remember, too, it's a hard limit, not an entitlement to three reverts every day). Thanks. — TKD::Talk 02:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

TKD, apologies for the 3RR, unfortunately some people think their views are the "final say" and do not like to use Talk page for discussion ~atif ^{msg me} - 02:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's the three other editors' fault. Arrow740 02:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Its definitely not mine, Aminz and Itaqallah's fault. ~atif ^{msg me} - 02:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not true at all; your edit-warring is never someone else's fault. -- tariqabjotu 03:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ibn Warraq is unreliable

"A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." In terms of criticism of Islam, Ibn Warraq edits compilations on the topic, participates in conferences, and is among the most authoritative sources in the world. Everyone knows that. Arrow740 04:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

may be lately you are not reading the talk page Criticism_of_Muhammad#Ibn_Warraq_is_not_reliable, he is anti-religious, extremist and you are ignoring his criticism. You still have to answer last Itaqallah's question on the Talk page. ~atif ^{msg me} - 04:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Fatima hall olf.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fatima hall olf.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

tagged ~atif ^{msg me} - 04:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eid Mubarak

Eid Mubarak! I wish you and your family a blessed Eid.

Your friendly neighborhood Muslim.

If you object to the above message, please remove it, accept my apologies and notify me on my talk page.

Your Eid Mubarak too, Atif! Cheers, --Aminz 08:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uzair

I fixed it the issue was the lack of continuation in the article Ezra as son of G-d, then, Ressurection of Ezra, and finally Ezra as son of God--Java7837 04:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks ~atif ^Talk 06:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

see Talk:Ezra#Disruptive_edits_by_75.43.79.38 --Java7837 21:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya Hindi Vishwavidyalaya

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya Hindi Vishwavidyalaya, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.hindivishwa.org. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 12:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya Hindi Vishwavidyalaya. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

rm some text and added reference to the external site (here) ~atif ^Talk 13:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ezra

I was thinking since most prophet articles are called Islamic view of (Prophet) that this article might end being called Islamic view of Ezra if not ok but we should call it Ezra (Islam) incase a disambiguation for so much reason is needed to be made for ezra--Java7837 05:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

sorry, could you elaborate "if not ok but we should call it Ezra (Islam) incase a disambiguation for so much reason is needed to be made for ezra" ~atif ^Talk 05:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I want all the Islamic view of Adam-> Adam (Islam), Islamic view of Abraham-> Abraham (Islam) do you agree with this and also would you be ok with naming the Ezra article Ezra (Islam)--Java7837 06:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to rename them when they are all already and consistently named as Islamic view of (prophet)? ~atif ^Talk 06:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It gives them a shorter name and the name of the figure appears first --Java7837 14:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not Vandalism

I can see why you thought my edit at Prophet was vandalism, but it wasn't: I removed a relatively spurious passage which was added in the past couple of months or so, apparently in order to 'pad' the description of Judaism and obscure the perspectives of Islam and Christianity. By removing that paragraph, I restored the section to its form before the article was virtually 'vandalized. IMO, a discussion of 'Prophet' in the perspective of Judaism should start with an explanation of the Hebrew word 'navi' -- not an uncited claim that Judaism basically doesn't believe in prophets and prophecies after 586 B.C. 09:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Islam is not "Islamophobia"

I've just reverted your edit on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy page.

I can see that you're adding "Category:Islamophobia" tags to other articles that document conflicts between Islamic norms and non-Islamic norms. In my opinion this is not proper, and I hope others remove your tags. --RenniePet 14:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

drawing insensitive cartoons is more than criticism and "Islamophobia" is also mentioned in the article.As per the definition of "Islamophobia", it should shows "prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims". Also the Category says "article in question discusses or refers to the topic of Islamophobia. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is Islamophobic." ~atif ^Talk 14:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree, and I hope other editors remove all of your "Category:Islamophobia" tags.

Nasty cartoons about George W. Bush may be "insensitive", but do not constitute "Bushophobia". Cartoons that make fun of Christians, or gays, or white people are expressions of free speech, and don't necessarily imply phobias. --RenniePet 15:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ezra in Islam

If you mention the Islamic view of the Jewish view of Ezra then you must mention the Jewish response as for NOPV.132.72.70.229 22:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic view of the Jewish view

Hello. I think you are missing the point here. What you are bringing is not the Islamic view of Ezra; unless you profess to worship Ezra as a god?! You are bringing the Quranic view of the Jewish view of Ezra, something completely different. As such, it is a point that belongs in the detailed discussions about the Islamic view of Ezra, and not in the main Ezra article. It is overkill, unnecessary, and against WP:SUMMARY to have it in both places. -- Avi 13:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ezra. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. -- Avi 14:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

what edit war? and you are wrong, read Kaiser's comments again as he is does not fully agree with you~ atif ^Talk 15:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ten Commandments

Hi Atif, I am editing this article; currently it says the 10C are important in Judaism and Christianity. I was thinking of changing it to Abrahamic religions but I have no idea if they are considered significant in Islam; the article does describe analogous statements in the Quran but I have no idea if the 10C are considered generally significant in Islam in the way they are in Christianity and Judaism - thoughts? Kaisershatner (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

very much for your helps in improving the article. :) --Aminz (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yay!!!

So exciting!!Where did you find the image?? Cheers, --Aminz (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Dear Mr Nazir, It is about the article on Dr Zakir Naik at Wiki. There was already a paragraph about "critics" as about most personalities these days. It is an established fact that Khushwant Singh did criticize him in his column. But you edited out my insertion about it out. Do you believe that my claim is bogus ? Also it is a known fact that his famous statement "...all muslims should be terrorists.." was a cause of worry for many an Indian, mostly among the responsible islamic establishments in India who are working hard to remove the stereotype misconceptions about islam. So I thought it necessary to be of mention as a "critics" paragraph was already there. Regards, Jon Ascton (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the point. I removed it because you have not quoted the source where you took the info from. If you can get the reference (book, website meeting WP:RS), it can be added back to the article. thanks. ~atif ^Talk 13:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time

An article that you have been involved in editing, Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Havasu Falls

Hey Syed Atif Nazir, I noticed that at the bottom of your user page you have Havasu linked. This link will take you to a disambiguation page, and not the page you intended. I am trying to cleanup some disambiguous links, and I was wondering if you could change the link on your user page to Havasu Falls or for a direct path Havasupai#Havasu Falls. Thanks in advance and good luck editing!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Moon split-1.jpg

Hi. Your source for this image is an ahadith but you need to source where you got the original image and if you modified it at all. Can you please do that? Thanks. gren グレン 16:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of Negus, King of Abyssinia

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Negus, King of Abyssinia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 05:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)