User talk:Proabivouac/Archive 2

WP:RFCN#El_chulito_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29

There is new information about this username that is relevant to the position you took in this debate, you may wish to review it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please check your email. --Aminz 07:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

For the barnstar. - Merzbow 18:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar and for your generous comments. If I form an exploratory committee I'll let you know;-) Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Islamic Ethics

Please see the source here [1]. --Aminz 04:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit-warring anon is abusing the system, and I reverted him.Proabivouac 04:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

But Karl and Arrow are edit warring too. --Aminz 04:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrow is active on the discussion page, and Karl at least sometimes talks. This only time anon, who has been edit-warring on a number of articles, had anything to say was at the talk page of your RfC, to helpfully point at Jews. Who do you suppose it might be?Proabivouac 06:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please comment over there. Arrow740 06:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've put it on my watchlist. What a mess. I'll likely join the conversation at some point.Proabivouac 07:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Inadvertently deleting messages

Hey Proabivouac. Earlier today, you deleted three messages left on User talk:George Carlin [2] and two of those messages were from admins trying to respond to this user's request for help. I'm sure this happened accidentally, but please be more careful in future. Thanks, Sarah 14:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Armyrifle User Page

I'll take it down. Armyrifle 20:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Jboyler

I have blanked this page due to its inflammatory content.Proabivouac 04:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That was funny. A user keen to provoke admins instead of editing the encyclopaedia. I see he got a 7 days wikibreak enforced by an admin. Well done Pro. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. May I also ask after your opinion of my recent edits to Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi?Proabivouac 10:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine edits. I tried to fix some more stuff. The article really needs citations. Cheers. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC/NAME

Just FYI. {Template:UsernameConcern} is up. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer.Proabivouac 23:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the Qur'an

Hi Proabivouac,

Can you please help us with this article. Arrow wants to remove ""Criticism of the science in the Qur'an is based on the assumption that the Qur'an talks about scientific issues. Many modern Muslims hold that the Qur'an does make scientific statements, however many classical Muslim commentators and scientists, notably al-Biruni, assigned to the Qur'an a separate and autonomous realm of its own and held that the Qur'an "does not interfere in the business of science nor does it infringe on the realm of science."

but Serfringle has agreed with it. Arrow says it is not topical and the first sentence"Criticism of the science in the Qur'an is based on the assumption that the Qur'an talks about scientific issues" is OR.

Can you please comment on that. --Aminz 22:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, can you please comment on this as well : "Ahmad Dallal, Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, holds that due to "considerable differences in the interpretations of the verses that may have a connection to science or the natural phenomena... it is not useful to try to ascern a particular quranic position on science."[20] Those medieval Qur'an commentators who believed in the autonomy of qur'anic and religous knowledge from science justified their postion by in insisting on the possibility of multiple scientific explanation of the natural phenomena, and the ever-changing nature of science."

Thanks --Aminz 22:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look in a bit.Proabivouac 22:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Beit Or had some good edits. The only point I have now is adding reasons of those Muslims who didn't make connections between science and Qur'an. i.e. this paragraph: "Ahmad Dallal, Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, holds that due to "considerable differences in the interpretations of the verses that may have a connection to science or the natural phenomena... it is not useful to try to ascern a particular quranic position on science."[20] Those medieval Qur'an commentators who believed in the autonomy of qur'anic and religous knowledge from science justified their postion by in insisting on the possibility of multiple scientific explanation of the natural phenomena, and the ever-changing nature of science." --Aminz 22:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:POINT

My friend, Proabivouac,

I know you are a reasonable and knowledgable person. If I ever complain about something it is along the lines of "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect". No doubt that your presense has been useful to wikipedia. There is no point saying obvious things since, according to Shannon, they don't convey any bit of information. :) --Aminz 08:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Aminz. I feel that the atmosphere is improving almost everywhere.Proabivouac 09:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Nation of Gods and Earths

How about this? It's sourced, but its inclusion in Allah strikes me as too marginal (and ridiculous) to merit inclusion.[3]Proabivouac 09:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I heard about it many times before. It can be classified as trivia or nowhere expect at The Nation of Gods and Earths. It is a clear false analogy. The refs used are whether opinions (i.e. Hip-hop's grim undertones) ore garbage (i.e. Akee Wise and Essence T-Shirts!!! (NEW!!!)) i just find it silly myself as well. Cheers. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Box

Hi Proabivouac,

What do you think of the box here: [4]? Cheers, --Aminz 11:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, having no idea who added that or why, I think it a way of unjustly privileging information. Magazines do this, not encyclopedias.Proabivouac 11:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly texts frequently use boxes like that. Frotz661 13:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Spencer

Hi Proabivouac,

Just wondering what do you think of [5].

It is written by Professor Carl Ernst, William R. Kenan, Jr., Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

Cheers, --Aminz 23:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Moon God

Hello, The cresent symbol used in muslims never has had any relation with your moon God concept. And for you kind info. People of Arab in pre-Islamic era had the concept of a supereme and absolute deity and that they called Allah. The idols they used to worship were considered the partners to that absolute deity. And even you argue on that, please have a slightly longer memory than just before the coming of Islam. You are associating Moon God theory to Muslims when their Holy book Quran refers to the incident of Prophet Abraham as:

[extensive quotes removedProabivouac 06:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)]

What lame theories you are associating to the pre-Islamic era??? And also strengthening the POV of the people who think Allah is the name of Moon God. Why???

VirtualEye 06:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You have the wrong editor: I deleted the material about which you rightly complain.[6] You can help keep this nonsense out of the article by removing it when it appears again.Proabivouac 06:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, sorry, I observed the comment which you gave at your edit. Misunderstood.

And thanks for your understanding. VirtualEye 06:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The mystery

Proabivouac, what do you think of Etymology of Isa? [7]. I am reading various theories from Encyclopedia of the Qur'an but before editing I wanted to know what you think :P Cheers, --Aminz 08:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hint: It is hard! :) --Aminz 08:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the scholars are puzzled. I'll edit the article soon. --Aminz 08:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I do strive to keep Wikipedia neutral. However, I have been trying to deal with one editor, VirtualEye (I see above that you two have already met). I really do believe that he has a wealth of knowledge in this subject matter, but is not expressing it properly. I would appreciate any help in trying to get VirtualEye to contribute in a positive manner. Thanks, --Hojimachong^talk_con 01:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk page a bit ago; I wonder if that addresses your concerns, or is there something else?Proabivouac 02:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar

I see you, like others, have massively removed sourced statements and addition from the Battle of Khaybar page, wihout explaining on the talk page. Please do so.Bless sins 04:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly did address it on the talk page, as per my pledge to FayssalF. I think Watt should be included, however, the way you've done so violates due weight and isn't neutrally worded. I agree that not including his viewpoint wouldn't be neutral, either, so I'd like us to arrive to a compromise on talk. Watt's not Maududi, and I've no intention to treat him as if he were. It's a valid source, and a perspective which should be included.Proabivouac 05:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've given my opinion at the article's talkpage. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Proabivouac, thanks for the words on the latest sockpuppet's talk page but I must caution you about such messages. It'd suck to see you get blocked for such a message per WP:NLT (which is taken extremely seriously around here). Cheers. (→Netscott) 13:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, and thank you for the advice.Proabivouac 02:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thanks

Thanks Pro for your support of my candidacy at Military history Wikiproject. Much appreciated. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this a good source?

Salam (Peace), I would like your advice. I found the following medieval book. Boy does it have A LOT of information. On wikipedia would this be considered a reliable source? Keep in mind that this book was written hundreds of years ago, reviewed by a modern scholar (the same who translated it), and had been translated into other languages. Also, keep in mind, the current version I have is not in English, though I have no problem reading it.Bless sins 17:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

al-Halabi, Nur al-Din. Sirat-i-Halbiyyah. Uttar Pradesh: Idarah Qasmiyyah Deoband. pp. vol 2, part 12, pg. 90. Translated by Muhammad Aslam Qasmi.

I don't know anything about it, but I'll try to find out.Proabivouac 02:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar

I'm sorry Proabivouac, but I find it unacceptable to keep some details but omit others from Ibn HIsham's narrative. Until we resolve this dispute, I suggest we keep al-Rabi off of the page. Bless sins 03:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You're the one who took it upon yourself to push your biased version onto the article, in spite of numerous and detailed objections on talk.Proabivouac 04:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I merely put what Ibn Hisham really says. Anyways why do you object to my version? It is complete and doesn't omit anything.Bless sins 19:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It certainly does omit things and, more to the point, spins them. I'll address it on the talk page shortly.Proabivouac 20:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

VirtualEye

I don't know about you, but I am getting pretty fed up with VirtualEye's consistent incivility. I would like to know how to best convey to him that his actions will not be tolerated. It is a problem, and is quickly deteriorating the state of discussion on Talk:Muhammad. I also smell some sock puppets;any thoughts on this? Thanks, --Hojimachong^talk_con 05:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts on Arrow740's talk page and on VirtualEye's. Hgold2000 and the anon threating us with hellfire may well be sockpuppets, or meatpuppets recruited off-wiki. At the same time, it seems possible that this individual wants the depictions to stay, and is trying to discredit the aniconistic cause (and effectively, at that.) I'm inclined to simply remove any further trollish posts of this nature; I doubt that any of the admins who've been following this increasingly ridiculous situation will have a problem with that.Proabivouac 05:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

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, peer review, and project-wide collaboration.
• 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! Kirill Lokshin 13:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

VirtualEye

The example you gave wasn't him reiterating his old point (which is, "they are fake pictures) it was actually a call for sources. I don't particularly find his talk page edits to be helpful, but I find TharkunColl's trolling to just exacerbate the situation since it's confrontational and make our page into a clash of civlizations (although, he just did a rather useful post). Generally, most posts don't help us get to a solution. I see little need to revert most things from talk pages. So, while I don't necessarily object, I think he is being singled out moreso than he should be. I'll settle for a compromise... we can just delete the whole talk page... ~_~ --gren グレン 13:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[duplicated material from TharkunColl and VirtualEye removed]

Gren, TharkunColl's been blocked from that page before, was recently warned again, and has cleaned up his act. Though, for a number of reasons, I don't agree that the Supreme Court image belongs in the lead, his latest post is just fine. The trouble I have with VirtualEye at this point is that he is flooding the page by repeating himself ad nauseum (even if there are occasionally minor differences between his posts - and look at it, most of it was just quoting the previous one verbatim.) I completely support your, FayssalF and Tom Harrison's commitment to restore sanity to this dysfunctional talk page, which as you suggest must be done in an even-handed manner. As you observe, trolling begets trolling, both through lowering the general atmosphere and through direct provocation (again in both directions.)Proabivouac 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't really mean remove TharkunColl's material their :O I just tend to be very non-revisionist on what has already happened (thus not removing posts) but maybe more willing to set guidelines -- such as, in this discussion you must bring up references from credible sources or cite specific policies. "Giving into Muslims" or "offending Muslims" are irrelevant, more or less... but WP:NPOV#Bias "religious" bias and "sensationalism" are both likely relevant. You may be right that removal helps limit trolling--it's just not my way. I'm not so sure how we put controls on a talk page, or if that's even a good idea. gren グレン 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar

You all work quite effective on the article and in my opinion there is no more need to keep an eye on it. Cheers Wandalstouring 21:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[8] an AfD that might interest you. Arrow740 03:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

User:ΞΞΞ\User:Dashes

Can you change it to "Dashes" ΞΞΞ 04:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I requested it to be changed. ΞΞΞ 05:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

All better now. ΞΞΞ 05:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Women in Islam

That article is shamefully POV. Arrow740 07:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740 is shamefully POV. --67.175.242.13 09:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ghamidi

He is too out of the mainstream to be quote-worthy on an encyclopedia unless his idiosyncratic views are labeled as such. I suppose he was greatly affected by the Ahmadiyya. Beit Or 10:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Re About that e-mail

Please do send...or if there is a trust issue, I can send first, with mutual guarantees of confidence.Proabivouac 11:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Pro. Thanks for the remainder. It is not a question of trust :) It is rather a question of time. I promiss i'll send it to you this week-end. You can email me before if you have something you want to tell me. Cheers mate. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I find it odd that AndionicO has been active on the page since we have asked for clarification, but has still not clarified. It's almost like a deliberate attempt at confusion. --Hojimachong^talk_con 05:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I made another, very explicit request for clarification to which I expect he'll respond. The problem is that his representation of its meaning in the "suggestions" section is totally different from what the proposal actually say, which I'm inclined to attribute to carelessness or confusion, not anything deliberate. I do feel he's handling this very poorly. The first mediator seemed much more on top of the situation, but he was forced off Wikipedia by real world threats. One thing that really bothers me perhaps the most is that I've nothing to suggests that he read these earlier discussions; another is his seeming indifference to Wikipedia policies, and willingness to suggest resolutions which contradict them for the sake of "getting it over with." Hojimachong, your continued involvement is deeply appreciated.Proabivouac 06:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I was inclined to mention the laziness of those agreeing for the sake of "getting it over with", but getting on the wrong side of mods is never a good idea. --Hojimachong^talk_con 06:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Mukataba

Can you please explain your revert. --Aminz 09:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Supposing you mean this,[9] yes: spelling, punctuation. Something else?Proabivouac 09:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, why did you remove "another"? --Aminz 09:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't really thought about "another." I have no particular problem with it.Proabivouac 09:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Beit Or's contribution was very good. I agree with that. --Aminz 09:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Re verification tags, just ask on talk. He's active, and I'm sure will answer you.Proabivouac 09:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel you are just looking for some reason to revert my edits. That's my impression at least.

I putted "check" tag to the quote attributed to Murray Gordon because the source "Murray Gordon, Slavery in the Arab World. New Amsterdam Press, New York, 1989. Originally published in French by Editions Robert Laffont, S.A. Paris, 1987," doesn't seem to be a reliable source at all. And EoI is silent on the point it says. 2. It seems that the Lewis quote should start with the positive side because most jurists are sunnis. In any case, it looked suspicous based on what I have read. There is the further question of what schools the majority of Sunnis are supposed to refer. --Aminz 09:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your questions sound reasonable; just post them to talk. If no one has good answers, then the tags are appropriate.Proabivouac 10:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If UCB is going to buy almost a hundred books in French from Editions Robert Laffont on a variety of academic subjects it's a reliable source. Please back up your claims. Arrow740 10:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What a convincing argument for reliability of a source. --Aminz 10:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a question for you. Do you doubt what he is saying? Please answer this question. Now moving on, if you continue to refuse to think about and/or accept the quotes we're attributing to him we can try to get a French speaker to find out more about the author and publisher. Arrow740 10:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

My basic problem was with he himself, not with translation. You asked, "Do you doubt what he is saying?" I think he is giving the view of some notable scholars on these matters though in some cases I may look at his work with more suspicion. He might know the details but maybe he didn't want to explain things in much detail in his work, just saying one view as a fact. I would rather not using him when a claim of his seems controversial.--Aminz 02:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation

Yes, I agree it's disorderly. If it doesn't work out, I'll archive it, and add a similar, more consice and simple version. I'm sorry about the policy, but one side says WP:NOT shouldn't allow censorship, while the other quotes WP:Profanity's first sentence. Each person hears what he want's to hear. It seemed to me that a midground should be worked out, which is why I started the straw poll. You say you refuse to sign either "Yes" or "No", something which I don't understand, since either you agree with my suggestion (Yes), or you have a different opinion (No). If you have any better suggestions, please share them. · AndonicO ^Talk 22:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:Profanity is a guideline, not a policy, and attempts to make it a policy were rejected; WP:NOT is a core policy. Further, attempts to construe WP:Profanity to include depictions of Muhammad were repeatedly rejected. This was discussed at length in the first round of mediation.

I removed my signature from "no" after, in discussion, you stated that "no" meant no depictions at all.Proabivouac 22:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Gaming the system. Policies always trump guidelines. Would we like propose that WP:Profanity is a policy? It's been attempted before, and failed. --Hojimachong^talk_con 23:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... good point. It seems like consensus is to add an image now anyways, and Kaldari has made a good point (IMHO) here. · AndonicO ^Talk 00:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Suspected Sock Puppet

I smell a sock puppet. --Hojimachong^talk_con 08:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Checkmeout101 is an obvious sockpuppet of User:VirtualEye.Proabivouac 08:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sweet, my first correct sockpuppet identification! Could you address this to the appropriate people who may block it? I need to go to bed. Thanks Proa, --Hojimachong^talk_con 08:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You may go here; however in my experience that page is mostly harmful, as the backlog is counted not in hours or even days but months, by which time checkuser becomes stale. There is also WP:RfCU, where you can list it as code F; this is probably a good idea. There is also WP:ANI, but that tends to be a mess. Finally, there are administrators such as Tom harrison , HighinBC and Grenavitar who are familiar with this case and are likely to see the obvious and act accordingly.Proabivouac 09:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what makes it obvious. It definitely could be. Either get another admin to block, wait for him to do something that I will block him or bring something more concrete. All of those are fine but make sockpuppet accusations on talk pages (even when true) doesn't help anything. Feel free to ask another admin. I am admittedly conservative in deciding when a user is a sockpuppet. gren グレン 10:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I don't see it as being obvious :/ I have posted on his page telling him he looks rather suspicious and to not edit if he is a sock puppet. Maybe that will solve things... gren グレン 10:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the logs:

• VirtualEye was blocked at 10:15, Feb. 17th, 2007, 24 hr. block ([10])
• According to Checkmeout101's logs, the account was created at 23:03, Feb. 17th, 2007 ([11])

Just food for thought. --Hojimachong^talk_con 17:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yay!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For helping me find my footing on Wikipedia! Thanks for the help Pro :P Hojimachongtalkcon 17:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The "hypocrite"

There's a dispute here that could use outside comment. Arrow740 21:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Be careful about recruiting people to touchy controversies; This could easily be construed by some as canvassing. --Hojimachong^talk_con 21:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Khaybar

Salam (peace), I read you last post. First things first. I really don't appreciate, Beit Or constantly making allegations not entirely true, and putting a negative light on me and my comments. I'm not holding you responible for his/her behaviour, but if you happen to know Beit Or, please pass my message on. Thanks.

About Khaybar. Believe me, I too am tired of arguing. That is why I proposed to quote Ibn Hisham as a quick escape out of this mess. The Banu Qurayza mess was created by a clash of interests where accusations were thrown against Muhammad, Saudi Arabia etc. that reached a low point when vulgar language was used to make personal attacks. Thank God, this article isn't like that.

But if you take a look at Khaybar, I too have made compromises. The final version that I was advocating, was basically your version, with a few changes by mesee this. But Proabivouac, also consider this: so far you have advocated (I won't say "push") basically one version, and you continue to do so. In the meanwhile, I have changed my version twice, as a compromise, and then finally suggested on using a version that neither mine nor yours. Bless sins 23:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Claiming to be acting reasonably does not make it so. Arrow740 23:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Attack

You're quite the helpful helper, Pro. How do I address this edit (and the fact that the IP is an obvious sockpuppet of somebody)? --Hojimachong^talk_con 01:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention, Hojimachong. I haven't had too much time this past 24 hours, but did take a brief look. It's a vandal who should be has been blocked, but I'm not certain just who. I recall seeing vandalism to a user page very much like what was done to Zazaban's here, but can't remember where just at this moment. I'll rejoin this thread later today.Proabivouac 21:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Good guys

So you are in the list of "good guys". I see :) [12]--Aminz 21:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for pointing that out. I'm reading this thread now, it's pretty appalling. Aminz. I see that you are listed as bad guy number one, for meatpuppets to follow around and revert all your edits. Let me know if you find this happening. Lists such as those should never be made, even in our heads.Proabivouac 21:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Proab. I don't know why Merzbow is listed as a "good guy". --Aminz 21:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The FFI edits were made more than a month ago. So, I should try to find the users which were created at that time. --Aminz 22:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If so, I've seen no evidence that the posts have had any effect. At least, I don't recall seeing any new editors or anons on the articles on which I've been involved; it's pretty much the same old crowd.Proabivouac 22:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Jesus Fan

Couldn't User:Jesus Fan just be tagged with Template:Newvoter? --Hojimachong^talk_con 05:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That template is only for users who might not be sockpuppets of User:VirtualEye.Proabivouac 08:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Food for thought

[13] --Aminz 07:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for changing my user page. regards, --- ALM 09:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Its time to report you for violating WP:3RR enjoy. --- ALM 10:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? For what?

On meditation, I'm only saying, don't alter other editors' comments by interspersing your own. I'm not inclined to let anyone do that to your comments, either. You seem like a pretty lawful and honorable man, and I don't understand why this should be difficult for you.Proabivouac 10:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You need one more revert according to my understanding. Hence cannot file report now because it will be wrong. Note, it is okay to revert once when someone disagree with you then let others do the reverting. I --- ALM 10:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am right now reformatting your responses, which I will add in a few minutes in their own section, while making it clear what you are responding to. Is it alright if I do this, without altering what you say?Proabivouac 10:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Conversation"

I hope you've seen this "conversation" between VirtualEye and... well, himself. The humour in it made my day. --Hojimachong^talk 05:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I commented just before getting this message. I love how he's supposed to be an American who writes for "publications." Doesn't he realize how many native speakers of English are on this forum? It being the English-language Wikipedia and all...Proabivouac 05:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

60.52.46.24 looks like another sock. --Hojimachong^talk 05:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's the same user as User:60.52.18.34, User:60.52:50.14 who's been posting to Talk:Muhammad. Probably VirtualEye again, judging from the time zone.Proabivouac 06:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh brother, here we go again...Proabivouac 07:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

STOP IT, you playing wif wikipedia again. im not virtual eyes or whatever. im towaru. and stop reverting my post. pls read wikipedia polieces and regulation. or should i teach you to read and not to jump into conclusion.--Towaru 08:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm playing with Wikipedia "again"?Proabivouac 08:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Abdallah ibn Ubayy

Dear Pro, which name we use might seem a trivial matter but I don't understand why you support itaqallah in this. The way he puts it, it is no reasonable request. Abdallah is a perfectly acceptable, normal and encyclopedic name. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Arrow740 23:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed nothing to edit war about. However, the way Itaq pushes it is revolting. However, there are indeed more serious faults to the article's current state which I will address in due time. Also, did you notice the unprecented deletion of all so-called un-sourced statements (not fact tagging but straight deletion) all the while introducing new ones (the EoI doesn't talk about followers of Abdallah making him King of Medina, though that work indeed uses the anachronistic term). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've mentioned one serious problem regarding the Aisha and the Qur'an. I'll stop by a little later to take a look at the rest.Proabivouac 00:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"EoI doesn't talk about followers of Abdallah making him King of Medina", indeed not, Rodinson does however. and yes, he uses the word king. ITAQALLAH 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

i also just wanted to say that to criticise the "way i put/push it" as a reason to dismiss a reasonable argument is disconcerting. i also see nothing "revolting" about the way i argued my case, nor about the way i undid clearly unreasonable edits. i don't want to inconvenience Proabiouac any further by arguing on his talk page, but i will say that a number of comments that you have made concerning me (i.e. [14]) are inappropriate. ITAQALLAH 02:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar

You said in your edit summary "rv to last version by Beit Or - judging from the edir summary, this is what Bless sins must have intended".[15]

What I intended is clear in here. What you reverted to is not what I intended. Ofcourse, if you have any other reasons for reverting my edits that is different altogethor.Bless sins 00:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw that you were being criticized on talk for what seemed a misleading edit summary, saw that your edit didn't, after all, look like a self-revert, and figured it was probably unintentional. However, I am curious as to why Watt and Lewis are now being removed from the first list of scholars, just as I was curious why Vaglieri's acknowledgement of Watt's other proposed motive was being removed (I see that this has now been addressed) - I've just been too busy with other things to ask.

Update - okay, I see it now, these are slightly different passages with different citations. I've restored your attributions.Proabivouac 01:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Quoting Ibn Hisham

Proabivouac, I can see lots of discussions on the quote from Ibn Hisham. Whether Kinana was killed only for hiding what he knew, or it was a revenge as well... Still, EoI doesn't mention this incidence in the article on Kinana and yet I have seen Muslim scholars who dispute the incident and say that Kinana was killed in the battle. I feel it is best to provide the Ibn Hisham's quote word by word since that would save us a lot of time. --Aminz 00:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is a notable tradition that he was killed in the battle, it deserves inclusion. I'm curious as to what basis there could be for this claim, as I'd understood Ibn Hisham to be the only source addressing the manner of Al-Rabi's death.Proabivouac 00:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Islamic Awareness

I was surprised to see the scholarliness of this website. For example, please see [16]. It quotes Fred Donner, Estella Whelan etc etc. --Aminz 01:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It also contains a collection of scholarly articles, e.g. [17] , [18] --Aminz 01:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sincerety etc etc

Proabivouac, thanks for your message. At the moment, I don't want to add that because it may demand further discussions on the talk page however I am a bit busy in real life now. Cheers, --Aminz 04:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am also working on other articles such as Isaac, Ishmael, Abraham etc etc . --Aminz 04:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Bless sins has left a message on my talk page regarding the battle of Khaybar. Please have a look at that. Thanks --Aminz 04:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, if you could help with Isaac article, that would be appreciated. --Aminz 10:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR

May be your edit was right but so do I think that removing picture are right. We both have no right to revert more often then allowed even if we both think we are right. nothing personal and you are welcome to file a report whenever you feel I over-stepped. --- ALM 13:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your cynical and unprincipled behavior - holding my good-faith and factual corrections to the pro-image side and restoral of Aminz's hard work against me - disgusts me. Unless you appear on WP:ANI#3RR right now to formally withdraw your bad-faith report, I will never again waste any of my edits upon helping your cause upon any page in which you are involved.Proabivouac 13:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly think that it was a fair report and you have over stepped. However, if you wish then I withdraw. No big deal :) --- ALM 13:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Mark my words, I'll never help your cause again. If an image is falsely attributed to the renowned scholar Al-Biruni, then it is. Your problem.Proabivouac 13:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have already widthdrew the report long time age. Please do not take it personally. You might be right but still we cannot revert more than 3 time in 24 hours. I also think I am right and very frustrated (even thinking to leave wikipedia) because of this picture dispute but I do not revert more than 3 times too. So now take it easy and calm down! :) --- ALM 13:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not care if you help me or not. It does not matter. However, I do not wish you to hurt the way I feel you seems like. Hence I widthdrew, even knowing that you had violated. -- ALM 13:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The only way I could have violated is by honestly acknowledging Zora's point that the creator of the image wasn't actually Al-Biruni, and by restoring Aminz's hard work from blatant vandalism. Thanks to your report, I've self-reverted: the misinformation about Al-Biruni is back, and Aminz' honest work is gone. That's your fault, and I do hope you're proud of yourself.

Re you leaving Wikipedia: yes, editors who don't care if things stated on Wikipedia are actually true, or if sourced and neutrally-presented sections are vandalistically blanked should leave. I agree with you 100%.Proabivouac 14:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

But you have also reverted three times picture. I cannot tolerate picture in the article. It make my blood pressure high :). Important to note is that WP:3RR does not say if your edit is right or wrong with references or not. If it is not against vadalisum then report is okay. Hence although I might agree with you regarding your first two edit but report was fine. --- ALM 14:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Re you leaving Wikipedia: yes, editors who don't care if things stated on Wikipedia are actually true, or if sourced and neutrally-presented sections are vandalistically blanked should leave. I agree with you 100%.Proabivouac . Okay thank you. --- ALM 14:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

""Hence although I might agree with you regarding your first two edit but report was fine." - well, that's exactly it, ALM. If you (and pretty much everyone, actually) agree with those edits, it's quite literally bad faith to have reported them. Practically speaking, if you make it so that I'm better off never furthering your cause then attempting to steer a moderate course by aiding it when I think you're right, then what can you expect me to do?Proabivouac 14:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar

Hello, In this revert [19] you stated that I made an "apparent misrepresentation". Can you specify the source I am misrepresenting and how?

You also said "cite Watt's opinion directly, not secondhand". I don't see anything wrong with citing Watt's opinions through Vaglieri. I also don't know if there is an wiki policy suggesting that we shouldn't quote Watt secondhand.

Finally, you said that there was "redundancy". Let me point out that the claim "Muhammad's decision to attack Khaybar was the need to raise his prestige among his followers, which had been eroded by the Treaty of Hudaybiyya" has been repeated twice in the paragraph concerned, and three times in the entire article. I don't think the phrase "The conquest of Khaybar would enable him to satisfy with ample booty his companions who hoped to capture Mecca and were discontented at the treaty with the Quraysh" is necessary as it has been adressed by the phrase above. If you want to avoid redundancy then you should support me in removing the phrase above.

In order to reduce redundancy, I'll put a compromise version.

William Montgomery Watt sees the intriguing of the Banu Nadir at Khaybar as the primary motive for the attack. Watt and Vaglieri agree the Banu Nadir had paid neighboring Arab tribes to go to war against Muhammad during the Battle of the trench, leaving him no choice but to attack Khaybar.

Bless sins 15:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Template "vandal"

In retrospect it almost certainly wasn't a vandal at all. I was in a bit of a rush when I entered that edit summary. Given the content of the edit that individual was likely an inexperienced editor just trying to help out. It was a bit funny though. Cheers. (→Netscott) 21:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Image

I am happy to know that you are watching it too. I would be pretty awful to see editors like ALM and Funnypop force their will through using such methods. Anyway, ALM has used his reverts for today, and I have reminded him of 3RR. -- Karl Meier 12:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR re: Muhammad

Proabivouac, you do realize that the admins generally look at everyone's edits on a given article? You might want to retract your report in your own interests considering that you yourself just appeared on WP:AN3 a day or two ago. (→Netscott) 15:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but I'm fine. Only my removal of ALM's pointish POV tag is a revert. Unless someone would perversely hold that my replacement of original artwork with sourced/notable calligraphy constituted a revert of the replacement of the lead image with the same? My edits to the "sources" section aren't reverts, and though ALM reverted them (why, I've no idea other than a grudge match), they weren't restored by me. I've done nothing wrong, and I'm well inside the dreaded "electric fence."Proabivouac 16:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

re:Vaglieri

Watt suggests "So Muhammad had not only a just motive for attacking them, but there was also the positive necessity to destroy these enemies..." Hence Watt suggests that Muhuammad was forced to attack Khaybar by their actions.

Vaglieri says, regarding Watt's opinion, "While giving full credit to the opinion of Montgomery Watt,". Thus Vaglieri agrees with watt's opinion. Her agreement is not reluctant, she "full[y]" agrees with him. Also, the compromise version i placed is very concise and not redundant. It infact removes other redundancies ignored by others. I request you accept my compromise.Bless sins 20:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to laugh

Check this out [20] --Aminz 02:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wazir Khan image

Proabivouac, I see no particular reason for it to be trancluded. Just introduce that image directly into the article and remove it from the lead of the transclusion page. As far as the Saudi flag I would recommend you discuss that change on Talk:Muhammad and have a solution for replacement ready to go. Cheers. (→Netscott) 10:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My thinking is that transclusion of that image would really only make sense in terms of it being a part of the lead of the article. The lead has been the most contentious aspect (obviously). If you are reverted on the main article then I'll be happy to help you work that image into a seperate section on the transclusion page. (→Netscott) 11:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 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 16:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)