User:Bless sins/talk4

Stop inappropriate removal of content

I'm seriously going to start considering filing an RfC on you for removing content like this. If you keep doing this (and you do it all the time), I will file a complaint. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I think the issue should be taken to the relevant talk page section, where Bless sins had already posted to explain this edit (26 October, in fact). How can your message be seen as an attempt at dispute resolution when you haven't been discussing on the talk page? ITAQALLAH 22:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Shaam-e-Gareeba

Good day, Friend! I seek your help. I was skimming through the backlog of uncategorised pages when I came across Shaam-e-Gareeba. I do not know the context, so I cannot put this in just any category. I have found similar texts online, such as here and here. I would like to ask you to check whether this isn't possibly a copyright violation and if you can, place the article in appropriate categories. Thank you in advance. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 08:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sock votes

Whats your point with this? Sock puppets can be reverted. These are banned people. Whats your point of this revert? Are you defending a sock puppet here? I dont think you should do that even if your bias matches up with his. This wont give you any good points for anything in the future. By doing this, you send a message to the sock puppet master to keep coming back to this site as if he's wanted here. I dont think you want to do that, right? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Waiting for a response. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

:-)

Thanks for the kind words and the cool barnstar. I've only been here five and a half years, you figure somebody would give me one eventually! :-) <eleland/talkedits> 19:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Islamonline.net reliable?

Regarding your edit here, is it reliable? Are you sure? Lets make a decision on this so later on if anyone else uses this site as a source, we wouldnt turn them away. Its laughable how you think Warraq is not reliable while these XYZ scholars and websites are. Lets have a discussion and see if IslamOnline.net is reliable or not. I welcome opinions from Itaqallah too. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And Gary Miller is 500 times less an authority on Islam as compared to Warraq. Tell me how Gary is more an authority on Islam than Warraq, but more so, whether Gary is reliable or not and if so, how. Gary is non-notable as well. Its really shocking how people rush to include these XYZ unknown scholars and websites but argue vehemently to exclude well known scholars like Warraq.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You really edit war as if its a normal thing to do. You do realize that edit warring is not encouraged under any circumstances, right? Please discuss. Edit summaries are not for arguing. Use talk. Haykal is also not a reliable source. A major muslim country's website using him a source doesnt make him a reliable source. They will use anything for whatever suits them. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, we agree Islamonline.net is not a reliable source unless the scholar is known and agreed upon by everyone as an authority. Also good that you agree that Gary Miller is not an RS. The question of Haykal remains now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He in no way satisfies reliability guidelines. Arrow740 (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

BlessSins, as I said, being mentioned on a a muslim country's website is not a qualification for being reliable. You use far less standards for pro-Islamic scholars than you allow for Islam-critical scholars, such as Ibn Warraq. Any real reason why Haykal is reliable source for issues on Islam? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We're not discussing Robert Spencer but Halyak or whatever his name is. I havent even heard of this Halyak guy. For starters, a lot of people know who Robert Spencer is. The same cannot be said of this Mr. Halyak. I didnt know who he was. Why dont you tell me why he's reliable? Spencer has written 7 books including 2 best sellers on topics related to Islam. Has Mr. Halyak done anything close to this? Also tell me how according to you, Warraq is less reliable than Halyak? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is time we also evaluate all other sources being used on Criticism of Muhammad and other articles. Any XYZ unknown person definitely doesnt deserve to be on this site. I'm sure you'll agree or I could bring so many others like Ali Sina or Abul Kasem (a former muslim on the internet) into Islam related articles. Think about it, if you apply the same standards to other authors, you'll make life easier for yourself and every body. Lets discuss this with Itaqallah as well. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The content policies and guidelines surrounding source usage are clear. We use the same standard of sources in Criticism of... articles that we would in any article. That means partisan, unreliable authors may not themselves be used. If the critiques or rebuttals of individuals have been reported by reliable sources (as may generally be the case with more popular idealogues like Haykal and Spencer), or if a reliable source is itself making a comment, then they may be usable. It's nice that we have been doing this to some extent on Criticism of Muhammad, but I hope it's not being doing in a point-ish manner. It is also necessary to do the same on Criticism of the Qur'an and Criticism of Islam, where there is heavy reliance on partisan sources which has made the articles bloat substantially. ITAQALLAH 01:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

All this bloating then has to be gotten rid of. Lets focus on this. Deleting these kinds of sources and thus reducing the size of the articles will help us all down the line. This is the first thing that should be done in my opinion. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And last time I checked, Sudan is an Islamic country (check it in the CIA factbook yourself), hence the link on Islam and slavery was relevant. If you want to make another article for Slavery and Muslim countries instead, we can do that too. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ape

Whats the OR here? Its Or if I'm making an analysis or interpretation. First you wanted to take it out of Islam and animals and now this? Please stop. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the "interpretation" I'm making? Quoting a verse is not "interpretation". --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We have the exact quote there now. There is no OR involved. Its int he Ape article because thats the word the Quran uses.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If one can read english, we can see the verse is about Apes. There's no OR. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Eurabia

The link belongs in Islam in Europe. If there's one article where it belongs infact, this is it. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

They're related topics. Who said a linked topic must be free of allegations? I dont have any opinion on Israel. I'm talking about these two topics. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A precedent doesnt mean its right. Have you tried talking adding the allegations article to Israel? Related topics are linked in the See also section. In place of this if you want, we can also make a separate section of Eurabia or mention of Eurabia in Islam in Europe. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Dhimmitude

Make sure you read what Arrow said in the summary. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to read Wikipedia:Lead section#Citations in the lead section which doesn't really support what Arrow was saying. "material likely to be challenged and quotations should be cited ... editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material ... there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis." <eleland/talkedits> 18:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In this case I beleive everything has been sourced within the article, however if other people are bent on removing it, I agree then yes, refs should be placed in the lead as well if needed. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing content

Its a joke linking to sites like these. I thought this would be something you might have done in the beginning but you did this today so its rather shocking because you've been editing here for a while, hence Itaqallah was correct in removing it. Please reevaluate how you're participating on this site and review the policies, WP:RS specifically. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Prisoner vs. Hostage on Gilad Shalit

Hey there,

There seems to be some sort of agreemet/compromise on the Gilad Shalit "hostage" vs. "captive" issue. Since you were involved in the discussions, it would be nice to have your opinion on it!

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 04.01.2008 15:54

Canvasing

You are right, I thought I had edited it but I was blocked. I was in a hurry and left my computer before checking to result. Getting back to your complaint, how am I violating WP:CANVASS? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

But why would Arrow 740 look for a reply to his comment on my page? Comments to him would be put on his TALK page. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock report

The sock pupept report has nothing to do with you so what is your motivation for protesting the report? Its up to the CU clerk to decide if a report is valid or not. Whatever the results are, how does this concern you in any way? Or are you defending a sock puppet again, giving them an impression that you want them to come back? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well then I didnt see you protest any other sock puppets on that CU page. Why only this one? Because you know that its Kirbytime, right? And you want to give him the impression that he's welcome to continue making socks. If you want to protest cruelty towards new users, why havent you made this sort of protest in cases where Kirbytime was not involved? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You didnt answer my question: why have you not defended new users before and only this time? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Also --- I have caught a NUMBER of Kirbytime socks, ALL with new user accounts. Will you say now that I was prosecuting these new users too? Respond to this question.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes you're right, you dont understand the CU process. Next time, refrain from disrupting the report or making protests about these reports and coming in the way of the normal Wiki processes here. If you see someone making sock allegations, dont talk about them unless you know whats going on. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I benefited tremendounsly from Atari being blocked? What? Yes so are you and Itaqallah opposed to me and ItaqAllah. Did I file sock puppets complaints against you and him? No I didnt. I dont file sock puppets just because someone is opposed to me. I'm going to say it for the last time: I have gotten Kirby's socks banned and the reports were mostly CORRECT. This may be too. Can you see that? Is that hard to understand? See that whole CU page and see for yourself. Dont interupt these reports in the future again. Again, what is your problem here? Did I file a report against you? Why are you having a problem here?

Answer the question: Have most of my suspicions about Kirbytime not being right? <-- answer this question. I think he's your friend and you are in contact with him off-wiki. Am I correct? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, all you are saying, is not going to look good for you when the time comes for admins to review your actions on this site. You can defend a friend and give them the impression that you support them, but ultimately, its not going to be good for you. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC) You're making me repeat my question, BlessSins: Have not most of my suspicions about Kirbytime being proven right? Please answer the question. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not answering the question. Please do. I've highlighted it above now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already told you on your talk page that I won't respond after the rude and offensive remarks you've made about me.

If you have anything further, please take it here.Bless sins (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the rude or offensive remark I made? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

<sigh>Again: please take this discussion to [1]. This is the last time I'm telling you to do this. Future comments on this subject (made on my talk page) will be ignored. Regarding the rude remarks made, see my message on your talk page.[2]Bless sins (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This wasnt a rude remark. Whats rude about that? You'r defending sock puppets here. I imagined you might be in touch with Kirbytime. Whats rude about saying that? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you respond to the question I asked you on the report's talk page? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last straw, I will start reviewing your contributions today. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

CIC

Repeating what I said in the edit summary, the CIC apoligized and took back its claims so it must have happened. Why did you say then "Daniel claims that this happened". Do you think this didnt happen? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Userpage

The same thing I did with the second quote here. -- Avi (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

peace / islam

assalam alaikum see my article Islamic Peace. please help to develope it.08:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Zikrullah (talk)

Honoriphics

Thanks for asking. As per this, we should just write Mohammed everywhere with no exceptions. The reader knows this is Muhammed, the prophet of Islam. If you make an exception in one place it will seep over to other places, so its just better to maintain only using 'Muhammad'. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok yes I see it now. Ok then, since thats what the MOS said, I've put it now as "The Islamic Prophet Muhammad". I didnt know we can mention that in the first instance of an article. Fine with me since thats what the MOS said. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 04:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Muhammad

About your edit here, Hirsi calling Mohammed a pervert is of course related to the article "citicism of Muhammad". Also, the Spiegel link also mentions the pervert thing:

Hirsi Ali, you have called the Prophet Muhammad a tyrant and a pervert.

Many other news links on the web mention this too ([3]). As for whether Hirsi should be mentioned in this article or not, obviously she should. She's extremely notable (just see her article Ayaan Hirsi Ali), has authored books on Islam, has been a politician, is a former Muslim, a present political writer and activist so all this is very suitable for her commenting on Muhammad. Particularly, her comment of calling Muhammad a pervert is very notable in itself and is mentioned all over the web ([4], there are a number of reliable sources mentioning this). Also I wasnt clear aboujt your edit; you mainly wanted to remove the pervert comment, correct? I just undid it now because there was also a formatting error in addition to the thing being deleted. Similarly, you could say the same thing about Martin Luther who is being quoted there saying "a devil and first-born child of Satan" and you could challenge Martin Luther as being 'unreliable'. This is not the case. These people are notable and thus their comments are worthy of inclusion. One could say "why should he be included, he didnt have any formal education in Islam and such, etc", but such a question is not valid since they're notable people. Do you agree then? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok I see it now. I removed it now. Yes thats OR, not supported by the source. If you want to move that to the first paragraph from Aisha's thats fine with me. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've undone myself, you were right in this case. We now have the pervert comment in the general criticism section although it really belongs in the Aisha section but I'm ok with either. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Cartoons

You put an OR tag on the cartoons article like this:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has stated that the cartoons should be published everywhere.[10][original research?]

This is verifiable in the ref link below her picture:

Hirsi Ali: "The cartoons should be displayed everywhere.

Or are you refering to using the word displayed and not published? I'm ok with that infact we should use that since thats what she said. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've replied in that section already. You're really applying unrealistic expectations and wrong standards just because you dont like the content as usual (and this should make you realize this).

For example, look at Richard Dawkins. There's a line in the article that says:

Dawkins was a featured speaker at the November 2006 Beyond Belief conference. [74]

Now, its not wrong for me to say in another place that "Athiest Richard Dawkins was a featured speaker at the 2006 conference.". You cant say "The [74] reference doesn say he's an athiest, so we cant say it".

The fact that he's an athiest is already known in his main article and its verifiable.

This little disagreement between you and me is going to be a deciding factor. I've been assuming good faith on you here. I'll take this to the community if we need to. I'm not going to start revert warring back with you but if you turn out to be wrong, you should apologize for being wrong or I will see no need to assume good faith with you any more.

Now lets see how this resolves. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep watching that Cartoons talk page. I'll be replied there. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Responded again [5]. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[6]. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[7]. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok fine, I will remind you again later if I see you havent replied. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we done on this cartoon thing or do you have any other comments? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You can do anything which is not OR or doesn't violate policies and which is meaningful. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

peace / islam

Thanks for your guidance and interest in my article. please help me to develop it as required. i think you will suggest me on how to do it. i will try my best. there is a great purpose behind creating it : "if there is islamic terrorism why not islamic peace?" insha Allah i will be successful in my genuine aim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zikrullah (talk • contribs) 11:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

dear brother, i have edited the article and i need your kind attention to it thank you! for Islamic peace 122.161.73.151 Zikrullah (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)(talk) 06:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC) THANKS for giving me the chance. i will improve it to a good article as i want it..

Barakat

Like in the case of Karen A, which we just went through, this I dont think is appropriate to be in Barakat's page, but in e.g. Muhammad and the Jews, where you moved the stuff. By the way the stuff you moved is also relevant to Banu Q. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 7 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hilf al-Fudul, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Whitewash

Please stop what you're doing at Muhammad's wives. The concensus is against including Maududi, and you're putting forward an interpretation of Muhammad's marriage to Zaynab as fact. Your reverts in this matter will be speedily undone. Arrow740 (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You've been editing that article for over an hour, and as I said on my talk I'm going to start editing it now. Arrow740 (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Islamic Peace and Zik

Can you please tell Zik that his article Islamic Peace is all OR? Instead of telling him this, you encouraged the person. I was going to do an AfD and might do it later. All this stuff needs to be merged elsewhere (if its valid). Basically, Islamic Peace is as valid as Islamic Violence. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your response is disappointing. There's no reliable source that uses the term "Islamic Peace", hence the page is all OR. Anyway, I had already done afd1 on that page by the time I saw your message. Sorry, it will have to be deleted. Didnt mean to "bite" but when I saw you guys are encouraging him to go in the wrong direction, I had to step in. Tell him about OR and RS. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

plz give me time to improve and source the article. it will be better after some editing which i am doin precisely.Zikrullah (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Pakistanophobia

Hi, sorry I answer your mail this late and that I could be of no help in the discussion, when I work I cannot concentrate on anything else and therefore abstain from Wikipedia.

take care Alf^Photoman 00:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

afd

Hmmm... Actually I think naming conventions must be discussed in the article's talk page rather than the Afd. I'm OK with either "Peace in Islam" or "Islam and peace" (one of them might be a redirect to the other). Both seem to be valid titles. Feel free to point to this diff in the Afd once User:Shirahadasha responded to your query---Lenticel ^(talk) 05:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Ijtihad

Sala Alaykum va Rahmat Allah

I found these sources[8] and [9]. Unfortunately I'm too busy and can't help you with it. But I think User:Enzuru can. God bless you.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. What are the major concerns we have? --Enzuru 06:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

please edit the article islamic peace

i think i need your help to wikify the article. also see carefully the recent changes. wassalam. Zikrullah (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Statements you have attributed to Watt

Respond to my requests here. Arrow740 (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is very serious, BS. If it turns out you have lied regarding Watt, that would be serious grounds for an RfC. Combined with your highly tendentious editing at almost every article you edit, there could be some serious repercussions. Please take advantage of this opportunity to prove that you have represented Watt accurately. Arrow740 (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Female figures in the Qur'an

Remember the talks we've had at Islam and animals? This whole page is about using Quran directly. This is just one, there are many others. I could make a page on Islam and hellfire, likewise. I think this page should be deleted - what do you think? Please dont answer the question evasively. We have to agree on some standards and apply them uniformly. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact is this: quoting religious scriptures is not OR. Last year I went to get an outside opinion on this here. I think we need to finalize a policy on WP:Islam because what frequently happens it when people dont like the part of the scripture being quoted or don't like others to see it, they'll claim the OR policy. Thats not correct. Simply quoting religious scripture is not OR. It never was. I wonder if there are any Christian/judaism parallels to see what those guys are doing. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is making an arguement. Simply QUOTING a religious scripture is not making an argument about it. IF that was the case, the dictionary entry for "argument" and "quoting" would be the same. Please see WP:OR. Answer this question:

Does Wikipedia prohibit quoting religious scripture?

--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? What policy says that we must use a secondary source while quoting religious scripture? Quote the policy. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Islamic military jurisprudence

Salam Alaykum

I put on hold tag on this article. What I've written is just some of my criticism, while I haven't pay attention to the criticism of other wikipedians yet. In addition I haven't checked the GA criteria. I hope my comment doesn't disappoint you but I guess you can't reach GA criteria in this try.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Salam Alaykum, Unfortunately I should inform you that I failed Islamic military jurisprudence. I hope God help you to improve it.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hope God helps me, I hope you help me too.Bless sins (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Islamophobia quote

This quote:

'Islamophobia', like all key concepts, is controversial.

is not showing that the term has 'wide support'. How did you make this conclusion? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, wide support is proven by all of the other reliable sources. ITAQALLAH 16:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

POV article

Is it right to have an article titled Muslim population growth in India? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Move

As you have shown interest in some India-related articles, so I have come here to you about the article Religious violence in India. I am not sure if it is right to move Religious violence in India to Communal violence in India. If you are interested in the topic, you can have a look at it. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your hard work to improve Islam-related articles, I hereby award you the The Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Keep up the good work mate! Λua∫Wise (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The barnstar has been moved to the mainpage.Bless sins (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock requested

Bless Sins's job is to login to Wikipedia and start reverting everything. This can be seen by looking at his contribs. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't agree, he has made significant positive contributions. Could I request you don't continue to post here while he is blocked. Thanks, Addhoc (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Addhoc, I understand what you are saying. You seem to be saying that Arrow740 made a legitimate edit, and I reverted it. Thus my edit was illegitimate (or not in accordance with wikipedia policies). But I still don't understand how making one illegitimate edit (twice with a 42 hour interval between reverts) warrants a 72 hour block.

I have a question about wikipedia policy. Does WP:STALK apply only to me, or does it apply to Arrow740 as well? If yes, then Arrow740 has been, quite recently, following me and reverting my edits on articles like Violence in Jammu and Kashmir (an article Arrow740 has never edited) and Islamic military jurisprudence (an article Arrow740 hasn't edited since 2006).

Take a look at Arrow740's edit here. He gives no explanation for reverting me, either on talk or in his edit summary. In reverting me, he also adds completely unsourced info to the article (somewhat like the edit I made for which I was blocked). Arrow740 had never edited this article before, and his first edit is a revert of my edit.

Why am only I punished and not Arrow740?Bless sins (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Request again

I see that you have made no specific comment about the reason I was blocked, which was "stalking Arrow740 on Buddhism articles".Bless sins (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Conversation

You made two blind reverts and completely ignored my edit summaries in your edit summaries and your after the fact talk page post. You have no idea what the issues involved are, and it's clear that your reverts were pure disruption. In the article Jizya you are removing content sourced to a secondary source on completely flimsy grounds, but in an article about a complex topic in Buddhism you restore content sourced to primary sources and ignore my edit summaries? Arrow740 (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ignore your edit summary. You, on th other hand, did not, (and as of yet) have not provided any evidence that the view is a minority view. Also, you didn't discuss on talk, until I started discussing on talk. Finally, you reverted me on Islamic military jurisprudence without even responding to my arguments on talk. It also appears that you haven't ever edited Islamic military jurisprudence. So why did you all of a sudden show up and revert me, without even responding on the talk page?Bless sins (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You acted as if you hadn't read my edit summaries ([10], [11], [12]) which is a habit of yours, and a violation of WP:POINT, specifically WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I've had Islamic military jurisprudence since I edited it over a year ago. I got involved today when I saw that you were POV pushing and hadn't addressed Yahel's concerns on the talk page, and I said that in my edit summary. Arrow740 (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said I didn't read your edit summaries, in fact I did. Let's face the facts:

• it was me, not you, who started the discussion (as means of resolving the dispute).
• Also, you haven't edited Islamic military jurisprudence since November 2006[13] (we are in 2008 now). But all of a sudden you come in and revert my edits.
• In addition, I have addressed Yahel's concerns 9 times in the past few hours on the Talk: Islamic military jurisprudence, see history.

Let the facts speak for themselves.Bless sins (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Yes, you made a short post on the talk page of Buddha-nature. This was after your blind reverts, and was clearly just an excuse for them after the fact. In fact, this "means of resolving the dispute" states only "Arrow has removed sourced content.[14] Can he/she explain himself?" It is as if you hadn't read my edit summaries, and to top it all off, this is after my edit which I made with the summary "Why are you editing this article but ignoring my edit summaries?" Regarding Islamic military jurisprudence, in my edit summary I was referring to this post [15], which you had not answered when I made my edit [16]. You are clearly trying to change the subject to me because you know you were blatantly disruptive. See tu quoque. Your mischaracterization of my edit doesn't excuse your blatant disruption. Further, a key issue here is that I edit articles closely related to Islamic military jurisprudence every day and am well acquainted with many of the sources and issues involved there, while you have never, to my knowledge, showed any knowledge whatsoever regarding Buddha-nature. This block is well-earned. Arrow740 (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency, Arrow, can you verify whether or not you contacted Blnguyen about Bless sins. Had he been following the ongoing dispute between yourself and Bless sins, I'm sure he would have noted that you've been acting in the same manner.[17] ITAQALLAH 13:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't contact him. The diff you linked to is at an Islam-related article and I didn't behave there as he did at Buddha-nature, so the situation is quite different as you know, itaqallah. Arrow740 (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's primarily an Islam related article or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that he was followed to an article neither you nor Sefringle had ever edited, and was reverted on sight without edit summary, for doing nothing other than removing unsourced material. I don't see how you can even try to justify your actions on that article, but condemn Bless sins for doing the same thing here. Not that either is justifiable, of course. ITAQALLAH 20:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Whether it's primarily an Islam related article or not is irrelevant." This is obviously false. Editing that article is quite in character for me, while for BS his edit at "Buddha-nature" was completely out of the blue and uninformed. "for doing nothing other than removing unsourced material." Also false. I call ethnic cleansing and coordinated campaigns of rape "terrorism" so I changed the wording back. As for removing unsourced material, because you are not telling the whole story I will do so myself. I restored the material in question [18] then tagged the unsourced sentences [19] so that they could be verified. It is common practice to do this if an editor believes that material can be verified, as you yourself have recently done: [20]. If you wish to make further misleading attacks please post them on my talk page. Arrow740 (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow you're being most unreasonable. An offense committed at an Islam article is the same as that committed as a Buddhism article. You said "Editing that article is quite in character for me". No it isn't. You've never edited Violence in Jammu and Kashmir before. Also, what you call "terrorism" is irrelevant we need reliable sources to do this. And you presented no reliable sources for your allegations.Bless sins (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. To claim that one has the liberty to disruptively wikistalk others because it's an "Islam related article" (only tangentally so, not enough to be a part of the Wikiproject) is pure wikilawyering.

Yes, you can restore material that is likely factual and easily verified by requesting citation. That's obviously not the case with some of the material you reinserted, which was dubious and challenged several times after addition of the tag. I don't think you believe in the material as strongly as you claim, especially as you haven't contested Addhoc's removal of it. So attempting to gloss over this disruption by pointing to citation practices is also wikilawyering. ITAQALLAH 09:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow740's comments moved to appropriate section:

Editing those articles are quite in character for me, while for BS his edit at "Buddha-nature" was completely out of the blue and uninformed. I call ethnic cleansing and coordinated campaigns of rape "terrorism" so I changed the wording back. As for removing unsourced material I restored the material in question [21] then tagged the unsourced sentences [22] so that they could be verified. Further responses to BS's misleading attacks are below in the "Conversation" section that he has ignored so that my responses would not be read while he continues his false attacks. Arrow740 (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow740 please respect the fact that this is my talk page. Addhoc has already advised Matt57 from editing this page. Also, please note that you in the past have removed my comments from you own talk page.[23]Bless sins (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

BS, you removed my responses to your attacks on me outright: [24]. What I removed from my talk page were your unfounded attacks on me, not responses to claims that I had made. Do you see the difference? Arrow740 (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(response to second unblock request) All of your edits to that article and the talk show that you completely ignored my edit summaries, as Addhoc and I have both demonstrated. It is clear that you had no idea of the issues involved, were reverting me simply for the sake of it, and then violated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with your subsequent revert and talk page post. Arrow740 (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Islamic astronomy

Salam Alaykum

I added those two issues which I had proposed and put forward two new issues in the talk page. The article was not really a good one but you had a great chance, I wasn't the reviewer;-) --Seyyed(t-c) 17:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Najjar a reliable reference?

You are invited to participate here (Imad marie (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

Talk:Dusun languagese

It doesn't seem to be serving any purpose. Deleted. See Wikipedia:Csd#General_criteria G8. Tyrenius (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Faux policy

No need to take the 'policy' seriously :-)

Pahari Sahib (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You took it seriously? -- sorry I'll bear in mind what you have said, I was annoyed about something and put it up.

Regards Pahari Sahib (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 04:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Terrible

This user has informed at least thirty editors about the voting. See his contibutions. Its "unbelievable". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Bless, I think in your version, saying "collaboration" is unspecified and can mean a big range of things. More importantly, I think the lead should summarize the whole article and stand on its own per WP:LEAD. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, what does "and knew the consequences of treachery" mean? Does the source clarify on this? I mean did they knew that if they disobey, they will be killed or their agreement would be set aside or they will be attacked? --Be happy!! (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, "According to Al-Waqidi and David Norcliffe" - I think it should be only "According to Al-Waqidi". David Norcliffe is quoting from Al-Waqidi. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Re "Practically all of Medina's inhabitants opposed the enormous Quraysh forces besieging the city, except the Banu Qurayza." -- There are two points here: Instead of saying that the Quraysh forces were enormous it is better to give real statistics (i.e. 10 times that of Muslims).

Secondly, we have the question of whether Qurayza's agreement required them to help Muhammad or not.

Watt thinks it is unclear whether or not their treaty with Muhammad, obliged the Qurayza help him defend Medina or merely to remain neutral. Regarding this question, Watt notes that they helped providing tools for Muslims. My understanding of David Norcliffe was that they were supposed to do that but they refused to do so because they were offended by Muhammad's preaching.

Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Canvasing

Hey,

Um thanks for letting me know. After I realized that it was not right to include my opinions on peoples talk page, I went around and deleted them. If you look, you will see them striked out. I think you will agree that this was the right thing to do. Also, user:OC went around and put personal attacks aboutme and about past discussions Ive been involved in on everyones talk page. Atleast I was honorable and did not include times when OC has come under fire. Anyway, since I have gone ahead and realized my mistakes and fixed them, I dont think there is a problem. Nikkul (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I will take a look, can't promise anything. Thanks for being calm about it. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 07:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

List of massacres

Hi. I noticed your work on List of massacres and it being reverted. It would be more useful if you could join the discussion at Talk:List of massacres to see where we are going with the article. See you there. --John (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)