User talk:Muhammed59

Welcome
Hi, welcome to ! Thanks for your edit to the Rocket buggy page.

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Sheldonist (Talk) 09:13, January 16, 2013

English typing
You need to improve your English. I'm sorry if I am racist.

Learn here: http://cnc.gamepedia.com/Command_%26_Conquer_Wiki:Editing_guidelines

All is well, I may have overreacted a bit myself. Now, regarding the articles, you might want to start using the Unitbox template. You can edit an existing article as a base. You can also start a sandbox article, for example here, so you can experiment with templates, spellchecking etc.

If you need any other help with the wiki, let me know. Sheldonist (yell!) 17:50, February 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Although I've found many of the images you uploaded funny, you might want to avoid placing other people's work from deviantART and similar sites to the wiki without their permission. CNC1 Nod Emblem.png Sheldonist (yell!) 12:49, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Images
If you get an error when uploading, then it's in an unsupported format or the name already exists. Try using names like "Gen2_UNITNAME_Render_15" and use formats like PNG, GIF (avoid JPEG and BMP). Sheldonist (yell!) 18:14, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

Generals 2 This Is APA image
Hey there. Where did you get this image? Is it an actual Generals 2 concept art? - Privatejfx141 (talk) 20:13, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

GLA being Global
Just to clarify about the GLA, even they are no longer the average middle eastern terrorists in Generals 2, they are still terrorists, like the Brotherhood of Nod, they are a global superpower, yet they are still terrorists according to the GDI. Also, about the GLA being a revolutionary movement, that's is what they were since the First GLA War. BTW there is no such thing as a "revolution cell", the GLA still consists of terrorists and guerrillas. - Privatejfx141 (talk) 21:22, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

Image restoration and comments
I will not return your image because it is obviously fanmade, and we do not support fan fiction in our wiki unless related to mods. Even if it is real (and I highly doubt it), we cannot have content leaked by alpha testers for legal reasons. We also do not have a tradition of deleting comments unless they break the rules. Sheldonist (yell!) 18:53, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

Your images...
You should stress these images will be deleted under the Command &amp; Conquer Wiki - Image and video policy. - Pvt. JFX141 (talk) 09:26, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

Images
Here is a link to the images for the CNC4 Nod Defence class cameos

http://www.cncnz.com/games/tiberian-twilight/nod-defense/#.UgzDRJKnpIp

There should be a link for the rest of the cameos as well and your welcome =) Sclera1 (talk) 11:53, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution but as someone said improve your English.. Yes the GLA is Arabian but in the Generals 2 the GLA has become international why can't you edit it yourself..

122.53.96.133 14:14, September 11, 2013 (UTC)

Edit stuff
You've read the first comment. Now edit stuff yourself like the GLA page. That is allRenzjericho (talk) 14:23, September 11, 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what are you talking about. Muhammed59 (talk) 17:40, September 11, 2013 (UTC)

Well, Then first of all THE GLA IS FILLED WITH ARABIC PEOPLE THAT ARE CONFUSED AND ARE FIGHTING BOTH FOREIGN AND FELLOW ARABIC PEOPLE! That is all.. Renzjericho (talk) 10:21, September 13, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your message which shows me nothing but the reflective of your self!. All of the CNC factions are killing people in purpose even the usa not just the Gla.

I dont want to remove your messege because that will be very rude from me so i wont

note:( im asking you to stop capsing on me, thank you).Muhammed59 (talk) 16:44, October 2, 2013 (UTC)

GLA is a terrorist faction
Hey there. I'd like to weigh in on a problem that seemed to arose. Let's get one thing straight: GLA is a terrorist faction. Generals is a series notable for its tongue-in-cheek humour and satire. In the original, the Americans are portrayed as your archetypal gung-ho liberator, bombing people into freedom while singing Star Spangled Banner and waving the Stars and Stripes everywhere. China is your typical Communist faction, with massive propaganda, tactics in numbers, and liberal use of napalm, artillery, and nuclear weapons (basically the Soviet Union having a party). And finally, GLA is built on tropes and cliches attributed by the media to terrorists. That's why you have ex-Soviet tech, Middle Eastern accents, anthrax, suicide bombers, and all the little bits the media loves to shows as being terr-ist, complete with weird chants.

Don't take the series seriously, as it certainly doesn't take itself seriously. The GLA are terrorists, the PLA are brainwashed conscripts, and the Americans are apple-pie world police. It's satire. And, as such, don't remove bits that are endemic to this satire. http://images1.wiki.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 09:20, September 12, 2013 (UTC)

PS: Don't bring real life politics here. Check the attitude at the door.

Problem is that would the GLA call themselves terrorists? Does not NPOV trump whatever basis you are using to assert their terroristicalness. Terrorist is something of a weasel word, it is something asserted as an attack by entities hostile to the entity being accused. The definition of the word itself is contested especially when governments like our China above seem happy to throw around nuclear weaponry they are kinda terroristic themselves by some definitions.

So in my opinion Muhammed59 is quite sound removing descriptions of GLA as a terrorist organisation.

PS: Politics in any cultural medium inevitably reflect real-life politics at least somewhat so consequently disputes over it tend to be rooted in real-life political differences.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 15:53, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * NPOV doesn't mean uncritically posting whatever propaganda the factions show. GLA styles themselves liberators, but are openly using terror as a tool and attacking civilian populations (eg. gunning down civvies to get funds from U.N. aid, nuking the Tiananmen square, destroying the Hong Kong bridge, inciting riots in Astana, using a biological warhead mounted on an ICBM against a populated city), so not calling them terrorists is a violation of NPOV. They're clearly a terrorist faction. http://images1.wiki.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 09:26, September 13, 2013 (UTC)


 * No it's merely an entirely justifiable POV position.  A NPOV position has to avoid using weasel words unless the organisation itself uses those words to describe itself.  So unless GLA actually is on record calling itself a terrorist organisation it is POV to describe them as such.


 * Problem is regular and irregular military forces may carry out atrocities and use chemical/biological/nuclear weaponry or in a more boring way carpet bombing cities full of civilians; yet we don't call them terrorists because they lack some of the characteristics of terrorists.  The problem with calling the GLA terrorists is that the deeds in question were openly done by openly constituted military forces bearing distinctive badges of identity, which according to the Geneva Convention would place them within the laws of war which terrorists are not (they fall under civilian law).


 * Terrorists must use disguise, that is their forces much appear either as regular civilians or under false colours and they must deliberately kill civilians in this guise. Since the GLA forces for all the civilians they may kill, do not do so in disguise but as properly constituted military forces under the Geneva Convention, it is not really POV to declare them not to be terrorists.
 * Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 17:33, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * Avoiding calling the GLA terrorist is, in itself, forcing a particular POV. From Wikipedia's NPOV article: Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field..
 * The GLA is seen as a terrorist organization by a predominant majority of the Generals world, including China, Europe, and the United States. Only the GLA itself sees it as something else. Therefore, avoiding calling them terrorist (hell, when they have terror units in their ranks) is obfuscation, not legitimate neutrality. http://images1.wiki.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 10:54, September 16, 2013 (UTC)


 * Except that the GLA is hardly a tiny minority within the Generals world.  And you are talking about solely the official positions of the governments, we know from the upcoming game that the GLA has plenty of support even within the above mentioned countries.


 * It does not work even *by* the basis you are using, a basis which is itself disputed on the page's talk itself, as in.


 * There should be a proper discussion on Wikipedia regarding the neutral point of view.

Ownership of the media by special interest groups, and a "neutral point of view on Wikipedia" needs to be discussed.

Some elements want to delete information from Wikipedia, when it doesn't suit a specific political or other agenda.

All kinds of phony terms are used to try and discredit edits made by individuals with a different point of view.

''What is a neutral point of view? Is it the Zionist point of view, or the Black Panther point of view, or the Arab point of view, or the Nazi point of view ?''

Deleting information when it doesn't suit and agenda is a sign of weakness, as it doesn't allow for balance.

''A neutral point of view should accommodate all points of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.11.46 (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC) ''

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 16:22, September 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't disputed. What you posted is an anonymous comment posted by a paranoid person who believes political options own media and that Wikipedia is influenced by special interest groups, not a proposal for discussion posted by an established Wikipedia contributor or member of the Wikimedia Foundation staff. It's a standing, uncontroversial policy of Wikipedia. If you are referring to the Neutral Point of View, then don't move goal posts and claim that the very policy you are referring to is disputed, therefore undermining your own argument.
 * I see no reason to act against facts and the developers' own intentions. The GLA has been consistently portrayed as a terrorist organization and referred to as such. Unless you can provide substantial proof that the GLA isn't what the rest world thinks it to be, this will remain the current classification, until a better one can be formulated. http://images1.wiki.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 10:55, September 17, 2013 (UTC)


 * What I was saying is that you were making a disputable use of a disputed concept.  The concept in question is disputed and the application of the concept to the GLA is disputable because of it's scope is beyond the scope of the concept.  I was saying that you argument was doubly weak, because it is making disputable use of a disputed concept.  But the validity of the concept you are using is not undisputed.


 * The statement that political opinions own media and special interest groups influence Wikipedia is not paranoia, more like stating the obvious.  The whole idea of NPOV is to prevent those special interest groups from rewriting Wikipedia to present only their viewpoint on things and then endless edit wars resulting as their enemies try to rewrite Wikipedia to their equally biased viewpoint.


 * What the policy is saying is that given the sheer number of frequently paranoid viewpoints held by insignificant numbers of people, it is not neccessery to cover all their minority viewpoints equally or at all in some cases at all.  However the GLA are not clearly an insignificant minority viewpoint in the Generals World.


 * Or perhaps they are (why it is disputed).  The problem is that NPOV is not supposed to be Democratic POV, it's not the simple assertion of the majority point of view.  But at the same time we cannot cover in exactly the same proportion superminority views with overwhelming majority views, so that every view only held by 0.0001% is given equal coverage as the view held by 99%.


 * The problem is the question of how unpopular a view has be before it counts as a superminority view and thus doesn't have to be given equal weight?  The fact that there is no clear definition of what counts as superminority means that dominant interest groups can use it to censor opposing views simply by defining dissent against their view as superminority.
 * Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 14:43, September 17, 2013 (UTC)I have read both of your messeages carefully and i want to thank both of you, there is lots of points which will be very usefull to me and i know that i supposed to resbond a long time ago but please understand, i have a life out of the cnc wiki and i hardly have few times to edit something and i didnt know about your messages until the last time i edit in some pages. I dont state the Gla as Arabain country i state them as Arabain military organisation like the brother hood of Nod, Nod is also state as terrorist faction but no one agree with that neither do me, so why you want to end this discussion while i wasnt here and tell you the reason why i dont state the Gla as terrorists. So im going to tell you and Slayer of Cliffracers about the reason that i dont  state them as terrorists and resbond some of your points and saying some good points from the GLA which you ignored that and the reason that why i am arguing against Wikipedia's established policy and more, and i get told to change the Gla page (see Generals 1 talk page). Muhammed59 (talk) 08:39, October 14, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you are arguing against Wikipedia's established policy which is not disputed by anyone except the far flung fringes of anonymous users. You missed the point of the policy, which was to note that different views do not have the same parity. That's why GLA is not going to be described in accordance with its propaganda, which is completely divorced from reality.
 * The GLA is a violent non-state actor. Although it describes itself as a liberation movement, it's not. The methods used by it (which include openly attacking civilian populations, the use of nuclear and biological weapons against them, generally violating established rules of warfare, and plenty of other dealings that are about as divorced from its professed goals and politics as possible). Therefore, the view of China, Europe, and the United States is correct in describing it as a violent terrorist network. There's also the small issue of GLA being explicitly called a terrorist factions by the developers of the game. Quote from the original manual: a loosely aligned network of terror. That's the end of this discussion. http://images1.wiki.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 09:16, September 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * To Tagaziel:

I have read  your messages carefully and I want to thank both of you, there are lots of points which will be very useful to me and I know that I was supposed to respond a long time ago but please understand, I have a life out of the Cnc Wiki and I hardly have a few times to edit something and didn't know about your messages until the last time I edited some pages. I don't state that the GLA is an Arabian country I state them to be an Arabain military organisation like the Brotherhood of Nod, Nod is also stated as a terrorist faction but no one agree with that and neither do I, so why do you want to end this discussion while I wasnt here and tell you the reason why I don't state the GLA as terrorists. So I'm going to tell you and Slayer of Cliffracers about the reason that I dont  state them to be terrorists and respond to some of your points and say some good points from the GLA which you ignored and the reason that I am arguing against Wikipedia's established policy and more. But first, let me tell you that I get told to change the GLA page (see Generals 1 talk page). Muhammed59 (talk) 08:40, October 14, 2013 (UTC)

(I have corrected your Spelling\Grammer, remember that I has to be capitalised in English and be wary of using them if you can avoid it but also avoid using me as well except in a social context such as are you with me, you use I instead if you are referring to yourself)

The present description is in my view a sound enough one, the GLA is a violent non-state actor, that is a pretty good NPOV compromise on the issue of what the GLA should be classified as. Strictly speaking I did not wish to end the discussion, Tagaziel did and I respect Tagaziel's right to declare our discussion over; because it is the kind of real-life stuff that people argue could argue for years about without any agreement and we both have real-life stuff to attend to.

Terrorism and Terrorist are concepts which lack an agreed upon definition and additionally a loosely organised umbrella organisation (such as the GLA or Nod) could quite easily end up endorsing terrorism by a certain definition without this having any central endorsement by the organisations membership as a whole or leadership.

Even if I agree that some actions of an organisation are terroristic by my own definition, there is the question of how extensive must that use of terrorism is before we label the organisation as a whole a terrorist organisation. All in all terrorist is basically a weasel-word which generally designates an violent organisation to which you are hostile.

Or as the infamous saying goes; One man's Freedom Fighter is another man's Terrorist.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 19:25, October 14, 2013 (UTC)

First, i have some English spelling which is normal, im not the first editor who have this problem and im going to be the last one and i will be more carefull next time.

Second: The discussion is not over because thats is not fair, you suppose to wait my message to explane why i dont state them as terrorists and it has nothing to do with the real world and i dont argue about the real world, you are mixing the GLA with the real world not me .No body state Nod as Terrorists, and the Gla is acting like Nod and he`s the only one who states as terrorists.

and just like i say it before: i wasnt know about this discussion until this month because i was so busy so please understand that, we all have lifes out of the community and i hardly have enough time to edit something, how do you want me to accept that the Gla is terrorists faction while you didnt hear any thing from me?, so please let me explane and im kindly asking you to stop talking about my English spelling and using it as a weakness, im here to edit not to hear some English lessons thank you Muhammed59 (talk) 13:12, October 21, 2013 (UTC)

Fanart
I would like to kindly ask you to stop uploading fanart without the authors' permission and without a valid reason to do so. Thank you. Sheldonist (yell!) 08:59, September 15, 2013 (UTC)