User:Bless sins/talk2

Re: Why did you remove sourced content?

Hi Bless sins,

My main issue is that a lot of the content is moved around to change what is given how much weight, and I would feel a lot more comfortable if you could make changes one at a time with reasoning for each so that we can all be very clear about everything on this contentious entry. I know that it is frustrating to be reverted, and I hope you can look past that. Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 21:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You know the score; if Schweitzer and Perry move down, the whole thing is reverted. You need to avoid whitewashing, and start working with other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ali Sina

What does the website say that you reverted here? The website actually says what you had reverted so I restored your change. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your reversions

You reverted in that "Judaism in Islamic theology" nonsense again, in the Qur'an section. You know there is no consensus for your whitewashing changes, but you continue to insert them anyway. Please get consensus first, and please don't post any more about article content on my Talk: page; rather, post on the article Talk: page. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I would advise against constantly widening this conflict. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to work with you, but in turn you would have to be willing to stop trying to whitewash every article you touch, actually make compromises (rather than simply edit warring for weeks on end till you get your way), and work towards consensus on the Talk: page first, rather than just stuffing your edits in and then trying to edit-war to keep them there. Are you willing to do that? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your use of the sources is abusive, and intended only for whitewashing. Everything I said above applies. I'm willing to work with you, but you must stop whitewashing, and be willing to compromise, not shove stuff in against consensus, then edit-war for it ad infinitum. And do not re-post material to my Talk: page after I have archived the entire page. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Compromise" or any such thing is next to impossible if you keep on deleting my comments from your talk page. That not only says that you practice double standards (for the baove is evidence that you post on my talk page), but that you don't even want to listen to me.

You have not done this once, but on multiple occasions. Most recently you removed my comments [1] saying "Please stop repeating posts on my page that have already been archived". Yet I added comments dated to 00:55, 5 June 2007 and you archived your talk page on 00:13, 5 June 2007. How can you have "already archived" my comments 42 minutes before I made them?

(Ofcourse there is a possibility that you deleted my comments without even reading them. But that raises another issue: how can we work torwards a compromise if you don't even read my comments)

If you want to work towards a compromise, I suggest you restore my earlier comments, and promise not to delete my comments again. Else, I see no way in which we can reach a compromise.Bless sins 01:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You included in that comment previous comments from June 4; indeed, this constituted the majority of your post. I had already archived my Talk: page, I don't need stuff repeating on me like a over-spiced meatloaf. Try again. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And what's the point of trying again? You will delete my comments just like you have in the past. The fact is that you delete comments of mine that you didn't archive. Your above comments is even more proof to hypocrisy under which you delete my comments on your talk page, but continue to add comments on my talk page.

Since it is your talk page, I leave it to you to restore my comments that you unjustly deleted, and to commit to not deleting my comments agian. I will not communicate with you only to see my communication deleted.Bless sins 01:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't control what's on my Talk: page, nor do you set the rules for what must go there. The issue here is article content, not my Talk: page. If you want to discuss article content, do it on the Talk: page of the article in question. If you want to work together with me, then stop whitewashing, stop abusing sources, stop trying to shove in your POV and the edit-war to keep it there. Commit to that and we can work together. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That is why I ask you to restore my comments. The underlying issue here is your double standards. After forbidding me from removing Schwietzer and Perry, you yourself removed content sourced to the authors. And now you post on my talk page, while deleting my legitimate comments from your talk page, is yet another exmaple of your double standards. I can't work with double standards. You will need to respect rule of law, if you want to achieve comrpomise. You will have to hold yourself to the same rules as me. You can start by restoring my legitimate comments.Bless sins 01:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen your comments. Do you want to talk about article content, or continue to whine about User talk: pages? It's up to you, but I'm not going to bother responding to any comments that do not deal specifically and solely with article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If you've seen my comments, then why do you delete them? What sense does that make? You also seldom give straight answers on talk page, but constantly tell me to look at random articles. I want you to first make it clear that you will not practice double standards, and that you will use respectful language (e.g no "whine" and calling scholars "nonsense").Bless sins 01:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your bogus 3RR report

Was a serious error; the bad faith is staggering. I suggest you withdraw it if you have any honor. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to recommend a block against you for an obvious bad faith filing. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your 3RR report

Bless sins, can you explain to me why you say that the first edit was a revert? Thanks, Crum375 05:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I already read your report before I closed it. My question to you is to please explain to me why you reported the first edit as a 'revert'. Thanks, Crum375 05:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bless, please don't just copy from your 3RR report - I told you I already read it. I understand someone else removed and replaced that paragraph before. I saw your message saying you felt it was wrong and needed fixing. I saw Jayjg's edit that seemed to rewrite the paragraph that you felt needed fixing. My question to you is why did you report that first edit as a 'revert'? Crum375 05:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand he self-reverted. That does not explain to me why you reported the first edit as a revert, can you please answer that? Crum375 05:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Without a proper explanation of BS's rationale for this filing, Jayjg's claim that it is motivated by bad faith seems more and more plausible, making his suggested course of action appear increasingly reasonable. Given that BS objected to the material, but then attempted to get Jayjg blocked when he tried to edit it to address BS's concerns, it appears that BS has made this complaint purely in bad faith. BS, please give me a reason why I should not block you for this. FeloniousMonk 05:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, Felonious, I'm recalling a block you appear to have issued yourself not very long ago against User:G-Dett, despite Jayjg's very similar statement that the material should be paraphrased,[2] and G-Dett doing exactly that.[3] I wouldn't challenge a no-violation in either situation, but going after BlessSins here seems rather unnecessary, particularly after he offered to withdraw the report if Jayjg self-reverted, and then did so, doesn't it? Mackan79 16:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bless, the first revert has to have a 'previous version reverted to'. In this case it was a brand new attempt to phrase a paragraph, which you suggested was needed, so there was no version reverted to. Crum375 05:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to call this a day. As of now I'm logging out, so won't be responding queries for about 10-12 hours.Bless sins 06:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bless, (a) when you filed your report, you saw a requirement for a version reverted to, and (b) any edit that anyone ever makes either adds or removes some material. So clearly this report was improper. Please be more careful when filing 3RR reports in the future. Crum375 06:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that a reason to admonish somebody, that they didn't include all information in the report? Also, a partial revert is still a revert; I'm intrigued by the theory that all edits are partial reverts at some point, but don't believe that's normally applied within less than a day... Mackan79 16:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Version reverted to

Bless, when I said above "you saw a requirement for a version reverted to", I was referring to the WP:AN3 page where you made your report, not the general 3RR policy page. On the AN3 page there is a template that you should use for filing the 3RR report, and it includes the "version reverted to". Unfortunately there are lots of incomplete or incorrect 3RR reports every day, and typically they just end up with the report being invalidated. In my message to you above, I am letting you know that your report was improperly filed and that you should be more careful when you file a 3RR report in the future. Crum375 20:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bless, please keep the discussion here. You are misreading the instructions on WP:AN3. There is always a requirement for a 'version referred to' for the first revert, for any 3RR report. The part you are quoting says that it is also required to add actual words that are reverted and reverted versions for each revert for more complex reports (although I would recommend it for each report of any complexity). Crum375 20:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And so if the user modifies his/her revert slightly every time it doesn't count as a revert? So if there is not version that a user reverts to, then it is not a revert.Bless sins 20:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding a version reverted to makes it a complete 3RR report. However, there are circumstances where a block will be issued even when the 3RR report is incomplete, and sometimes no block is issued when the report is complete - it all depends on the blocking admin and the specific circumstance. Crum375 06:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note this block.[4] In this block the "Previous version reverted to" requirement is missing. Yet the user was still blocked.Bless sins 04:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

See my reply above - each case is different. I generally like to see a complete 3RR report. Other admins may block on 'edit warring', even if the 3RR report is incomplete. Crum375 06:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Endpoint

Yes, they're very similar concepts. An endpoint is a type of equivalence point, where the reaction has reached completion. There can be equivalence points before this though, for example the triprotic acid H₃PO₄ (phosphoric acid) reaches equivalence for each proton transfer, so there are 3 separate equivalance points, the first being the point where it has all become H₂PO₄^-, the second HPO₄^2-, and the third is the endpoint where only PO₄^3- remains. For many reactions the terms are synonymous. I've moved equivalence point to the category titration, and added merge tags to both articles. Thanks for pointing this out. Richard001 21:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Article in use

Bless sins Arabs and antisemitism is in use by me. I even placed the "inuse" tag. Can you please refrain from editing? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't abuse the inuse tag by using it for reverts to your article whitewashes, when you know they are not agreed to; that's what ridiculous. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Your first "edit" was a revert to a whitewash which you knew was contentious. Don't abuse the inuse tag; get consensus first. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I restored Lewis, and you're playing games; we can't restore the Lewis stuff about Muslims, because Muslims and Arabs aren't the same thing. I put the actual quote about Arabs in the lead. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

All of your edits are whitewashes, as that is your sole purpose for editing these articles; therefore this was for the same purpose. Get consensus first. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"All of your edits are whitewashes" : "All" and "None" statements are usually heard from extremists and radicals. What is this consensus when four editors are working on an article and two of them agree with something? I don't remember Jayjg convinced others of his edits (e.g. removal of the subsection title on theology). --Aminz 03:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You're talking about the wrong article. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Aminz's comment still applies. You have done a massive revert on Islam and antisemitism (under the assumption that all my edits must be bad), removing lots of reliable info.Bless sins 03:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

None of the edits were discussed and agreed to, and they were preceded by the usual revert-wash. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Consensus: "someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it." It can not be applied to cases where few editors work on an article. --Aminz 03:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You abuse the inuse tags for reverts. The inuse tag is for non-contentious editing, not whitewashing. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You started by reverting, and then playing games about which Lewis quote belonged in the intro. I'm tired of your whitewashing and game-playing. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The one you deleted wasn't about Arabs, and doesn't belong in the intro. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"The one you deleted wasn't about Arabs.." This is the quote I deleted: "The volume of anti-Semitic books and articles published, the size and number of editions and impression..."Bless sins 03:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the one you kept inserting wasn't about Arabs, and doesn't belong in the intro. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The quotation I added was "According to Bernard Lewis, during the past 1,400 years, Arabs, for the most part, have not been antisemitic..." [5] This quotation, as you can see, is about Arabs. Lewis specifically says "Arabs". A-r-a-b-s. Arabs, not Muslims, but Arabs. Bless sins 03:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it was about Arabs. I was looking at the second statement from Lewis which as about Muslims. The first statement, however, is qualified; he says "not antisemitic as the Western world understands antisemitism", or words to that effect. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, you are right that the quote is about Arabs. But I think that quote could be put inside the body of the article; not in the intro. Further, we should state the definition Lewis is using. --Aminz 04:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Lewis in his book in 1999 says that the claim that Arabs can not be antisemitic because they are semitic is absurd but that Arabs were not antisemitic for other reasons. --Aminz 04:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Eventually Lewis should most probably go into the body but that is if Jayjg agrees that all of Lewis' quotes can be put into the body. I think we should leave Lewis in the intro until we can find better content. Yes and we should put the reasons as well.Bless sins 04:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now you suddenly don't want Lewis quotes in the lead any more. See what I mean about whitewashing? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The current quote from Lewis in the intro is biased as it, being the intro of the article, only talks about present day situation.

Please take a look at [6] --Aminz 04:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the volume of serious literature on the subject, I wouldn't bother trying. These kinds of inconvenient facts don't go away so easily. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Smile

James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Banu Qurayza

Hi Bless sins,

I hope you are happy with my latest edit [7] (where I provided an external link to barakat's thesis). If not, please feel free to revert. Cheers, --Aminz 22:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR

Thank you for the note explaining your 3RR actions. I included it in your defense as part of my application to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I am interested to see how that plays out. Prester John 22:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I left a comment on the board. Honestly, I disagree with many of your changes, but I feel that the other side can be a bit severe as well.

However, it's always better to discuss than to edit-war over things. I believe that most issues can be resolved- don't worry, I'm always willing to listen to complaints and concerns, but only if the opposition listens as well.--C.Logan 00:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 36 hours

I've blocked you for 36 hours for violating the three-revert rule on List of notable converts to Islam. Please refrain from edit warring when your block expires. --Coredesat 00:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Coredesat. As you can see I self-reverted my last "revert" on the article, per WP:3rr#I_have_violated_3RR._What_do_I_do.3F. In addition to that there was no "previous version reverted to", for three of my "reverts". Can you please reconsider this block? I think it is unjustified. Bless sins 00:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, if you think you have a reason to be unblocked, you should add this to your talkpage: {{unblock|YOUR REASON--~~~~}}--Jerry 00:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Bless sins 01:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Explanation

I self-reverted here and further clarified my self rv in the edit summary of this edit.

The second revert, as reported, is not at all a revert. Please note the difference between my "Previous version reverted to" and "2nd revert". [8] The main difference is that I replaced a dead link with a better one, and also added another notable person.

Please note the difference between my alleged "Previous version reverted to" and "3rd revert". The difference is the same as above.[9]

The differences between "Previous version reverted to" and "4th revert", are even larger.[10] In my fourth "reversion" I add two more notable persons to the list, and conduct some other minor edits.

The allegation that the fifth is a revert (to be counted in 3rr) is ridiculous. That is a self-revert, as I declared in my edit summary. [11]

Hi Bless -- just FYI, I think you may have mixed up the way the reporting works, which is to show that you reverted to the previous version, not that you reverted the previous version itself. That means the fact that your edit resulted in basically the "reverted to" version is how a revert will look. It's too bad you didn't get a chance to fit the self-revert in; 36 hour seems like a bit much to me when you tried, but I guess sometimes that's how it goes. If you see that it was simply a mistake on your part, you could try explaining that, otherwise the time will probably pass soon anyway. Best, Mackan79 04:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

List of converts to Islam

Please stop playing with these lists and deleting important information about converts to Islam. Its not going to work. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way we had just discussed on Talk:List_of_notable_converts_to_Islam the lack of a credible source for Yvonne Ridley being an Anglican and taken the comment out for that reason. Reverting this without checking or replying on the talk page is a bit naughty...but I cannot say I haven't done worse --BozMo talk 14:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

House demolitions

The source says "In the Gaza Strip alone, more than 18,000 Palestinians have lost their homes since the start of the intifada", but as many live in each house, the number of houses destroyed is less than 18,000. Regards ابو علي (Abu Ali) 14:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Genocides in history

did you intend to add this reference "Georges Andreopoulos, Genocide. Conceptual and Historial Dimensions, p.24, 37" to your last edit to Genocides in history? --Philip Baird Shearer 20:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.Bless sins 20:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You have to think of a different way of editing

Seriously, you have to work this out in some different way. If you only edit to whitewash, then you'll find no-one is willing to accept any of your edits. In addition, if there is no consensus for your changes, then you need to move on - you can't just keep coming back 4 or 5 days later and reverting in the hope no-one will notice. Finally, if you talk about making some small change on the Talk: page, and then make a huge series of undiscussed changes in the article, no-one will trust you. This is the position you find yourself in now. In order to regain credibility, you need to

• a) focus on small changes,
• b) show you can edit from both sides of the NPOV equation,
• c) work with other editors,
• d) get consensus for a change first, and
• e) accept if there is no consensus for you edit, and move on.

I'm telling you this in the hopes that you will actually re-think what you have been doing, and become more successful in getting your edits to stick. Build bridges, and try to re-gain credibility through extremely honest and impartial edit suggestions, not simply whitewashed edit-wars - that's what will get people to start to trust you. I'm telling you this in good faith, because I think it will make a huge difference if you try it. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, to begin with, there's not point in asking "where is the rule for this etc". Your edits are not sticking, and I'm giving you good advice on how to be more successful. Regarding your insinuation that I was anti-Arab or anti-Muslim, far from it. I used to keep track of these things, here are some examples: [12] [13] [14] Now, if you take my advice, you'll be much more successful, so that's why I recommend it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a really provoking comment. From my limited experience, Jayjg himself doesn't follow these rules, particularly number (a). To put it more accurate: When there are two different versions, everybody wants the other party to follow (a). --Aminz 08:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Number (b) is really interesting. Does Jayjg closely follow this?? Isn't it strange that Jayjg calls the view of Encyclopedia of Islam "random" and "outdated views" and as such wants to remove them from the article altogether? (ref his comment on 03:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC) on the talk page of "Islam and Antisemitism")

Everyone familar with Encyclopedia of Islam(a very prestigous academic source) knows that it represents notable academic views (in many cases it covers important ones; not just the POV of the author). Part (c) says: "Work with other editors"; this is only possible if the parties want to follow part (b). I highly doubt Jayjg always does it. In fact, he goes as much as saying that adding information included in a detailed passage of EoI adds nothing of value to the article. One might ask if this is so then Norman Stillman must be out of his mind when he was writting EoI.

And here is a quote from Jayjg: "your purpose here is to whitewash". Not so encouraging indeed. --Aminz 08:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar

Right now I am tagging based on the principle of inadequate reason for the blanket exclusion of sources based on Muslim/ religious affiliations. I haven't really followed the content as yet to take specific positions on them, but can do so later. NPOV is a non-negotiable part of the process and my concern on this article is with the systematic bias that crept into it by over-reliance on western sources and a censoring of eastern scholarship which has eliminated the way Muslim historians view(ed) the events.--Tigeroo 04:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try

to help but no promises. Is it Arrow740 or someone else? --BozMo talk 08:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This sums up what I would say, and I think a few other editors would agree based on posts of theirs. Arrow740 08:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That's ok. Lets try and talk through some "for examples" and see if we can improve things. --BozMo talk 10:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I have found the obvious examples from edit histories. Both of you going to 3RR on a straight content revert isn't really good but at least you stopped at 3RR. But I have looked through the changes and I really struggle to see the significance of them. Most of them just look like odd wording changes. What is the alleged POV being introduced? --BozMo talk 10:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You could start here if you really want to get into it. That Muhammad is "the exhaustive embodiment of the divine message" is basically the POV of the sources in question. Arrow740 10:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Even taking that as agreed, it doesn't mean that the sources are unreliable on everything, just that they have to be watched for that bias/POV. They look like credible sources with a POV to watch to me (but I could be convinced otherwise): you cannot get a serious appointment in a POV location by being a pipe-dreamer, you have to be a scholar with a perspective. Most major national newspapers for example have some POV issues but they can still be considered reliable on a range of issues of fact. So why are you reverting even small details just because the source given happens to have a POV? I would think it very unlikely that something like evidence of a previous assault (which may well not be notable by the way) would be made up by a serious scholar with a POV: it has to have come from somewhere. Subjective content on say personalities etc I would treat with much more caution. --BozMo talk 11:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I'm not sure what the above conversation is about. Please note that I'm not trying to insert the above source which Arrow740 calls POV.

Firstly, I thank you BozMo that you'll attempt to help us. Actually, it was more a dispute between me and Jayjg on the articles Islam and antisemitism and Arabs and antisemitism. The dispute seems to be increasing and has spread to other articles as well, but I'd like to concentrate on the above two articles. I beleive that the biggest problem here is that me and Jayjg are not able to communicate well with each other. Please take a look around at the following sections to see what's going on.Bless sins 12:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism#Trends_section
• Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism#Quran_section
• Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism#Definition_section
• Talk:Arabs_and_antisemitism#Lead

Ok. Hmm. I have to say I am a bit reluctant to get too involved with antisemitism as an issue on Wikipedia. It is, I think, the area where Wikipedia most consistently fails to achieve any kind of NPOV. There are also some fairly aggressively editors around the antisemitism articles, with WP:OWN issues. I wonder if the mediation committee might be a better place to start. Personally, I don't think Jayjg is likely to listen to any opinion I might offer. --BozMo talk 13:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be useful to note that BS is usually alone in his massive whitewashing edits. He doesn't even get support in them from editors who share his views. Arrow740 19:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Arrow no one is perfect but few are without any merit. I am happy tring to help people understand each other in most circumstances but am not keen to touch antisemitism more than I feel I really have to. --BozMo talk 20:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

House demolition

Hi Bless Sins. The article House demolitions and it's spin-offs undoubtedly need improvement. Have you seen a proposal for one of the spin-offs, being here. Your suggestions would be gratefully received and likely operated when clearance has been given to resume writing articles. PalestineRemembered 20:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Infidel

This edit tells us that two very interesting things have occured to you. Arrow740 09:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Overlapping Text

just a comment about your page: Text mentioning Wikipedia prophets of islam and the line that says you are a student seem to be overlaping each other. You may want to rearrange it Cs1kh

Under the title "My future plans 1", I am viewing using a Firefox browser using 1280*1024 resolution Cs1kh

I have the same problem with the page (also Firefox). --BozMo talk 14:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, offline publication, article improvement contests, and other tasks.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Wandalstouring 10:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

task force that might interest you

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Early Muslim military history task force Greetings Wandalstouring 11:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I added you as participant. Wandalstouring 15:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahmed Yassin

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ahmed Yassin. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. -- Avi 14:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

OR

Can you please stop adding original research to Ahmed Yassin? Wikipedia is clear that original research does not belong in any of its articles. Respond back on Talk:Ahmed Yassin.Bless sins 14:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Statements in the articles that have reliable sources ipso facto cannot be OR. Please read articles before making unsubstantiated statements. -- Avi 14:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read the article before removing sourced categories. Thank you. -- Avi 01:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, if you READ the article, you will find the source for it. Please take the time to carefully read the article before making statements that, unfortunately, are not based in fact. -- Avi 16:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Islamic military jurisprudence

و عليكم السلام, i think the first thing to do would be to see if you can find any reliable source material on the topic and see what you can derive therefrom. then, once you're happy with the content, the coverage and so on (also making sure there are no ongoing content disputes), you can then submit the article for a peer review (which can then also be transcluded onto the WP:ISLAM peer review page) where you will then get feedback from those who usually offer advice. you may be interested in comparing the article with the GA criteria to see what needs to be done to bring the article up to good article standard. you could also look at other good article candidates or recently passed good articles to see the kind of standard you're aiming for. hope that helps. ITAQALLAH 16:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A request from a new member

hi, how are you. I began recently to contribute in wikipedia. I did my best to clean up and to enrich the article Zionism and racism allegations, but I am still a new wikipedian and my English language is not as good as what it should be. I think I still need some help. I hope you will participate in developing that page.

Please be sure to see my edits in the article since I fear that they will be reverted quicly. --Aaronshavit 21:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

dear Bless sins, I am not sure what do you mean by "they are far from what is expected on wikipedia"!!! I did my best to comply with the WP:V and WP:OR. The article lack resources, I added information from authontic resources without violating WP:OR + it contained POV which made it related to any thing but its title, I made it more related to its title+ almost solved noncompliant problem.

Anyway I am rechecking now the pillars and the pollicies of wikipedia. Thank you for your reply. --Aaronshavit 08:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism

Bless sins, i would strongly urge you to consider mediation on Islam and antisemitism, as per WP:DR. as talk page discussion and RfCs have not worked, perhaps the involvement of an independent mediator will help bring things to a resolution, and perhaps will at least help temporarily stop the edit warring. as it currently stands, i don't believe there is likely to be any resolution to the back-and-forth reverts in the near future. ITAQALLAH 22:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is still the inclusion the "Judaism in Muslim theology and beliefs", which is constructed of quotes not connected directly to antisemitism, hence WP:SYNTH. This is in addition to the other problems relating to the moving of Perry and Schweitzer, all of these issues which have been extensively discussed on Talk. Tewfik^Talk 18:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 02:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 02:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources are there

What are you doing here? The sources are in the article. Whats the issue here? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Say…

Say, Bless sins, three people have nominated me for adminship. Supposing I accepted one of these days, would you trust me with the tools? Are there concerns you would have which I could address? Because we've disagreed a lot, you seem like a better person to ask than someone with whom I've never been in editorial conflict.Proabivouac 06:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Pro: By that logic, you should also be asking me.
• But that might mean addressing directly questions about why you a) tampered with my userpage without first posting a note on my talk page about the changes you wanted to make, why you b) violated WP:3RR and then talked your way out of being blocked for it on Kaaba, where you were fixated on inserting an image of the Prophet, and why you c) refused to work with me to generate a consensus draft at Muhammad on disputed text, ducked questions there, and refused, via the silent treatment, mediation on the resulting logjam.
• If you (or your buddies Matt57 or Arrow740) ever do want to talk about any of these things (as in, you know, maintain a continuous dialogue) why not drop me a line? BYT 14:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Help for title issue

Hi, I saw you contributed to British Mandate for Palestine. Could you give your mind for a title issue between Palestine and British Mandate for Palestine here.
Thank you in advance !
Regards, Alithien 18:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 09:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:STALK

You appear to be stalking me. Please stop wikistalking my edits to revert them.--Sefringle^Talk 03:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your utterly ridiculous accusations to yourself. I "stalked" you by reverting your edits on Islam and antisemitism/Arabs and antisemitism, you've got to be kididng me! The the edits I'm making have been on articles I've been editing before.Bless sins 03:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about those articles. I am talking about Islamophobia (which you never were an involved party to until I reverted someone), the Religious attitudes to racism Afd (you voted within minutes of my comment there), somehow you knew I nominated Sheila Musaji for speedy deletion; I doubt you were watching the page. You were the first person to comment on my afd of The American Muslim [15]. Just to name a few recent examples. And please respond here.--Sefringle^Talk 03:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have been editing Islamophobia since January. [16]

• Religious attitudes to racism was on my list as well. I edited the article a couple of days before you opened the AfD.[17]

• I was looking into Sheila Musaji so as to list her as a notable convert to Islam. Besides your proposed deletion was ridiculous. Sheila Musaji and The American Muslim are connected, so when you edit one, you are lead to the other article as well.Bless sins 04:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, if you delete my comments from here, then I'll ignore all your subsequent messages on my talk.Bless sins 04:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

More accurately, with Islamophobia, you didn't edit it since March 3 All of a sudden, you show up and revert me after I revert someone. The timing was just perfect with the Sheila Musaji article (and related) stuff as well. Same thing with the religous racism article afd. It makes a good case.

And see the big blue box, where I asked you to respond on your talk page. I'm not deleting your comments. I am jsut moving them here, because it is better to have a discussion on the same talk page, not over two different talk pages.--Sefringle^Talk 04:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

After you deleted my comments from your talk page, I no longer want to pursue this on mine either. If you think you have a case, report me. Otherwise, this argument appears to be a waste of time.Bless sins 04:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islam and antisemitism. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

With regards to this, can you please move all the issues originally added by you into the "Issues to be mediated" section, and all those added by Sefringle into the "Additional issues to be mediated" section. Cheers, Daniel 12:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If you could note your support/opposition in the "Deskana's offer..." section, we can get the ball rolling. Cheers, Daniel 12:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions on Mediation talk page

Hi Bless sins, thanks for giving me the opportunity to help you mediate this dispute. According to Sefringle, the issues listed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islam and antisemitism are themselves under dispute. As such, I've created a bit of a template for you to fill on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Islam and antisemitism, so we can decide what issues are to be mediated. I'd appreciate it if you could fill it in, so we can get going. Thanks. --Deskana (apples) 10:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Request

Salam (peace),

I have seen you editing many articles related Islam or Muslim culture. I have also never seen you edit-warring or holding strong prejudices. For these reasons, I request that you take a look at Islamic military jurisprudence.

Please give feedback (either on the article's talk page, or mine) about the quality of the article. It would be appreciated if you gave back constructive criticism, keeping in mind that I eventually want to nominate this article for WP:GA status.Bless sins 17:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually this article is related to WP:MILHIST. Please follow these steps to get the article reviewed by the community. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

List of converts to Islam

Whats this? Why did you remove Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

IP socks

The issue of your extensive use of IP socks for personal attacks is going to have to come before the community. Arrow740 23:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

some actual evidence would be nice. ITAQALLAH 23:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change of name from War on Islam to War Against Islam

This seems less ambiguous and more widely used. Any objections? --BoogaLouie 17:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Rashidun army

Hi Sameer

Could you merge Rashidun army and Rashidun Caliphate army since you seem more familiar with the subject and I'm afraid to make mistakes because I lack knowledge and sources on the subject. Thank you. In my humble opinion, the result could be nominated for a peer review or even an A class review. Greetings Wandalstouring 11:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply To Comments

Thank you very much for your comment. It is a question that I feel must be asked, and one that has been utterly ignored in the Western world. Padishah5000 01:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 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 09:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalizing Younus Shaikh

Please stop vandalizing the Younus Shaikh. If you feel a thing needs sourcing the correct way is to flag it as uncited and let it stay so for a while to see if anybody turns up with a cite – you should not just go out at random and delete large segments of an article. In any case I cited them, but perhaps you didn’t notice with your latest delete? And Rationalist International a "hate site"? Yeah right. The link to Faith Freedom, is a link to an article he has written. I can include the old link to a Finnish translation if you insist. Rune X2 06:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked you for revertwarring on List of notable converts to Islam

When your block expires I hope that you are able to join the rest in discussing the issue on the talk page. Thanks. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You should check out what the dispute is about. Contentious content (that someone has converted to Islam) about living persons is being inserted despite sources on talk page provided that usggest otherwise.Bless sins 03:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This was a block long undue. BlessSins regularly reverts without using talk and removes sourced information. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Bless sins has done much wrong in terms of his edits/actions, but a block for edit warring when there were only 2 reverts is a bit excessive.--Sefringle^Talk 03:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Matt, those kind of accusations do not bring good will to you. Please consider the impact of what you state. I have just warned you and others in this dispute to settle down and discuss the editorial issue. Please do so, rather then pointing fingers. Thanks. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblock please

{{unblock-auto}} I believe my IP is still blocked. Can you unblock it? Thanks.Bless sins 03:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That should be fixed now. Try editing the sandbox or something and let us know if it works. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

List of notable converts to Islam 2

I've replied to your request at my talkpage.

In a nutshell, if the editors on the page don't come to a consensus and would prefer this as an option (protip: a straw poll helps!), I am willing to blank the entire page so there is no "bad protected version" being displayed. That's the extent of my willingness to modify the page contents.

Otherwise, come to an agreement or use the dispute resolution system (of which I am not a part of at the moment) instead. In these cases, you're free to request page unprotection after you've either come to consensus decisions or have resolved your disputes.

Further edit-warring on the page, of course, will result in protection being extended and possibly people being blocked for 3RR violations again. I'd prefer neither of those happened. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Islamic military jurisprudence

Ping! --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 06:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Religious Segregation

I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish by removing all references to Islam from this article. Of course religious segregation exists in non-Islamic societies. They are all (or should be all) mentioned in the article. The statements in the Islam section are sourced in the linked articles. If you have a problem with the statements in those articles, then you should address them there. Alexwoods 15:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Qurayza

Hi Bless sins,

I think the passage,

In pre-Islamic Medina the Qurayza was of inferior status to the Banu Nadir, as the blood-money paid for the murder of a man of Qurayza was only half of the blood-money required for a murder of a man of Nadir. Muhammad raised the assessment of the Qurayza to full amount of blood money, thereby establishing friendship with them

belongs to the section on the history of Qurayza before arrival of Muhammad (i.e. Arrival of the Aws and Khazraj). I have a suggestion: to add it to "Arrival of the Aws and Khazraj" section. The last sentence may be better to be written as "Muhammad later raised the assessment of the Qurayza to full amount of blood money". The last bit "thereby establishing friendship with them" seems to be someone's opinion, so may be we can remove it. Just an idea. --Aminz 04:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism mediation

Hey, don't forget about the Islam and antisemitism mediation. There hasn't been much activity there lately, so Deskana is asking if you guys want to continue it. IMHO you appear to be in the right so please don't give up on it. Thanks.  :-) -- HiEv 18:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)