User talk:Peaceworld111

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Peaceworld111!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Peaceworld111!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Image:DarulBarakaat.jpg was uncategorized on 10 September 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Madhhab Map2.png

I really don't want to get into a political or theological discussion, but if Muslims tend not to consider Ahmadiyya to be a legitimate form of Islam, then Wikimedia Commons graphics are not the place to try to change that. Also, if the only effect of including Ahmadiyya to the map is to add one tiny pink dot in northern Pakistan, then it may not be worth it. Unfortunately, the nature of the relationship of Ahmadiyya to other Islam and the geographic distribution of Ahmadis may mean that this image is not particularly suited to mapping Ahmadis... AnonMoos (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

AnonMoos It doesn't matter if it is a legitimate form of Islam according to certain Muslims. It is a legitimate form of Islam per reliable sources. Besides, it wasn't just a tiny dot in nothern Pakistan. Did you look at West Africa, or for that matter East Africa?Peaceworld111 (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

1. 1 -- please don't "upload war". Commons policies strongly suggest that if an image edit is controversial or changes the purpose of an image, then the new image version should be uploaded as new file under a different filename, instead of overwriting.
2. 2 -- I really don't know that it's the role of Wikimedia Commons images to force classificatory acceptance where it does not exist in the real world (i.e. to classify Messianic Judaism under Judaism, even though the vast majority of traditional Jews reject this; or to classify Mormonism under Protestantism, even though the vast majority of traditional Protestants reject this; etc etc). This seems far more likely to create unproductive controversy than to change people's minds.
3. 3 -- the dots on Africa are even tinier than the dot on Pakistan (which reinforces what I said above). If something is barely visible on a map unless you very closely scrutinize the map at the highest possible resolution, then that indicates that the map format is probably not appropriate for that particular purpose... AnonMoos (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

1. 2a -- AnonMoos Well to remove Ahmadis because they are considered Non-Muslim or heretical by some Muslims is " to force classificatory acceptance where it does not exist in the real world." Equally sources (that I can provide) indicate millions of Muslims consider Shia/Ibadis/Ismailis and others as Non-Muslims or heretical, yet I do not see removal of their mention. But that is irrelevant because they are Muslims by standard, reliable and independent sources, just like Ahmadis.
2. 2b -- If controversy is the issue then, I'm sure you are aware, there are far more controversial images here on the Commons and that cannot be used as a point.
3. 3 -- It is barely visible because of the lack of contrast between the colours. If I used sharp red or any other contrasting colour, It will be easily visible. Besides many movements that have been mentioned are smaller (at least in number) such as the Ismailis, Ibadis.Peaceworld111 (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Dude, when there is a legitimate controversy in the real world, then the Commons approach is to allow images representing the various views to be uploaded as separate images, and to leave it up to the individual language Wikipedias to decide which images to use. It is NOT to impose viewpoint uniformity on Commons images through upload warring. So far, you've been in violation of COM:OVERWRITE (which might be seen as rude behavior), and your arguments are not very cogent. Ismailism and Ibadism are very old splits within Islam (over 1,000 years old) which have ruled over whole countries at various times (Fatimid Caliphate, etc.). Ahmadiyya, however admirable it may be, simply does not have a comparable status. Furthermore Ibadism represents a large contiguous bloc which can easily be seen on the map (more or less coinciding with Oman), not tiny discontinuous dots. I have no skin in the game, since I'm not a Muslim, don't have much respect for Wahhabism, etc.; however, your version of the map does not strike me as a useful update to the existing image (though with some fixes it might be useful as a separate non-overwriting image with a new filename). AnonMoos (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I've uploaded a new version. I am sorry if you thought I was edit warring.Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Baitul Awwal Mosque, Tirana.jpg

File:Baitul Awwal Mosque, Tirana.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Glorious 93 (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Islam branches and schools.svg

I'm not going to immediately revert your file, but your intervention with respect to this image seems quite unfortunate, since it seems to imply that Ahmadiyya is an old early division within Islam, which is not historically accurate, and is not how the vast majority of Muslims perceive it. AnonMoos (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't. No where is such an implication made. Brelvi, Deobandis are recent movements too. What actually needs to be done is to complete the picture and add more subdivisions etc.Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it does do so by implication. Sunni, Shi`i, and Khariji were all major factions in the first century of Islamic history. Whatever the merits of Ahmadiyya, it is simply not at that primary historical level, and its box would better be located somewhere further down the chart. Adding in further recent groups (Nation of Islam, etc.) at the top-level branching would compound the absurdity... AnonMoos (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, you've said that the chart implies that Ahmadiyya is an old early division within Islam. Could explain how you've come to that conclusion, inspite of at least three examples (Ahmadiyya, Brelvi, Deobandi) to the contrary? In fact a number of other subdivisions came centuries later. The chart aims to be showing the relationships between different divisions. There is no timeline attached to the chart. You are reading something that doesn't exist. Peaceworld111 (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

NOI should be added under an "African American denominations" of which there are several.Peaceworld111 (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)