User talk:Proabivouac/Archive 6

Dear Proabivouac

Dear Proabivouac, first, allow me to thank you for your kind words to me the other day; they are much appreciated, albeit undeserved ;) I am getting ready to move on to a stage of proposed solutions at Talk:Cherokee, and only waiting for you to make your statement since you kindly asked me for a little more time. If you could please proceed, I'd be most grateful to you. Again thank you, and I await your reply. Love, Phaedriel - 02:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My bad, thank you for waiting. I do intend to post tonight, but as I'm already late, I certainly would not blame you for "leaving" without me…it's not as if I can't hop on board later.Proabivouac 02:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries, please, dear - I'll keep this stage open at least until tomorrow night if you wish. Sounds ok to you? Phaedriel - 02:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sorry if I seem a bit undercoherent; it is the price of climbing aboard ontime. I am quite willing to change my stance, which only reflects my current thoughts, upon further information. While I agree that anthropologists are clearly reliable sources, I don't want to see the Cherokee viewed through an "anthropological lens," if that makes sense. They're a reasonably significant nation with a storied history that just happened to get the short end of some recent historical sticks. AS they've a government, a respectable territory and population, I think they deserve some of the respect that accompanies real historical notability. Not that small groups who are wiped out or moribund are bad, but I think/hope you know what I'm saying. As with Maya or Inca (to name just two American groups) it's a mistake to think of them as part of the past, which is what privileging Cherokee descent ("heritage groups") implictly does.Proabivouac 10:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:ColScott

I think you may not have meant to revert Fire Star's last. Hesperian 05:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, of course not. Sorry.Proabivouac 05:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request possible collateral damage

Is there a reason for removing the declined unblock request from User talk:ColScott that I missed? Would you mind if I put it back in? Regards, --Fire Star 火星 05:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Just an error. Restore it, please.Proabivouac 05:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought. And you beat me to it! Cheers, --Fire Star 火星 05:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

admin's board

Proabivouac, you are right when you write that this article should be created and the expression "apes and pigs" would deserve to be described... but if this is treated a neutral way with reliable secondary sources for each pov introduced
Given the high controversy around that expression that could make people think Coran is antisemite (which remains a minority and controversial view) it is important the work is done perfectly immediately.
So, maybe Zeq could start the article in his own space and when he will have gathered all these information, he could discuss with other contributors about the work and introduce this in the encyclopedia space.
what do you think ?
Alithien 08:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Oppose Vote

In that situation, there was folks blanking everything in an article, whether it was contentious or not. For example, in the discussion that you linked to, a list of wrestlers that a fairly famous wrestling personality managed. T I was just trying to get clarity in a situation that required it regarding the word contentious. I discussed the case with User:Jossi here and as I said there, I have no problem with BLP being enforced the way it is, I just wanted the policy clarified so the next person in such a discussion does not find themselves in the same situation. BLP is one of the core tenets that Wikipedia rests on. I do not oppose it in any way, shape, or form. SirFozzie 12:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it with a fresh eye, I agree with you. Undiscerning it was of me not to see that. Thank you for responding.Proabivouac 14:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. Glad I could alleviate your concerns :) SirFozzie 14:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I am too, you're a great candidate. I feel a moral obligation to be the squeaky wheel, but in this case I squoke too soon.Proabivouac 14:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

seeking another opinion

i have removed these comments from Talk:Muhammad as they appear rather inappropriate and trollish (the second of which i find especially disruptive - the user has been reprimanded for this behaviour previously). they have recently been restored by Frotz; i would like your opinion on the matter. ITAQALLAH 05:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Good call, I think - the appearance of the second speaks to the utility of removing borderline instances such as the first - but as Frotz restored it (bad call, sorry, Frotz) and Merzbow's decided to rebut it instead, I've followed him; no sense fighting two good editors over this. This whole section ("Picture of Mohammad PBUH") was trollbait to begin with. Hell, this whole talk page, for as long as I can remember…Proabivouac 07:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, what do you think about userboxes like this: [1], [2]? ITAQALLAH 22:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Need you ask? It's a no-brainer: they should go. I've nominated both for deletion.Proabivouac 01:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

could you step in on the current dispute on Talk:Islam? it looks like we've hit a brick wall. thank you. ITAQALLAH 00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Which one, the one about jihad/slavery?Proabivouac 00:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

yeah... the cessation section. thanks ITAQALLAH 00:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:AlbertBrown80

I'm aware of all the issues, but since he was engaging in dialogue I was/am willing to give him a chance. If he were to abuse this offer, he would find himself on a very long vacation. Whether there's a relationship of any sort between him and any other user - I have no idea. FunnyPop12 hasn't edited since March - I don't know if he's still blocked. AlbertBrown80 can resume disruptive editing if he prefers that to dialogue, but given his history this is likely to result in quite long blocks - which'll be permanent soon enough if he doesn't straighten up and fly right. He's under a three week right now - we'll see what happens. WilyD 17:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

It looks like my Request for Admin has closed successfully at (58/8/2). Your support is a thing I'm very grateful for. I appreciate you asking me to clarify that section, because most people would have just let it stay, and who knows how it would have turned out then! :D I consider it my duty to try to live up to the trust that you and others have shown in me SirFozzie 18:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad to see that you've passed.Proabivouac 01:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Why ?

Friend, why you are doing that. I am not going to start voting there again. What you will like to accomplish there. I deleted the contents myself what else you what? You will feel happy to delete it then okay. Have fun! I though you are a very good person but ... -:) --- A. L. M. 09:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, why did you recreate the page? You can't well blame me for asking that question. What I'd like to see - and I'm obviously not alone - is for you to move onto to some other topic(s). Wikipedia will have depictions of Muhammad. The good news is, you're still welcome to contribute. People like you, ALM - that's why you've not been blocked or banned for all this disruption, and why hardly anyone has suggested this. Please don't force the community's hand.Proabivouac 09:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not care if they dislike or like me. I really do not care. I know you have been collecting evidence (some fake some real) about me since a while. I do not care at all. I might even do not reply in RFC or arbitration case that you might file sometime soon. I only care to be liked by myself by maintaining good standards and rules of Islam (not to lie, be nice with people and try not to hurt them, not to achieve what I wish to achieve using wrong ways, ...). I am careless about others liking or disliking. You know I never ever created a socket puppet even though I really wish to delete those pictures. Not because I am afraid of wikipedia rule but I do not wish to defame my religion. It tell me not to use wrong ways to achieve even good things. --- A. L. M. 09:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Rules of Islam. Arrow740 09:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

ALM, I've not assembled any portfolio on you; the thing I copied before was just AMC's list of image reverts. I detest RfC's and ArbCom cases; why would I open one? It's you that's been talking about this for what seems like months now - total projection for you to suspect others of preparing an ArbCom case.

As for religions and our personal actions…well, I don't have sockpuppets either; neither do most editors in this space, of any religion. Do you expect some special prize for being Muslim, but not being bannably disruptive? I agree with you that the most effective evangelism is setting an admirable example. Several other editors have set very poor examples, and have wound up embarrassing whoever they agreed with.Proabivouac 09:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

AMC's list of image reverts was not alone you also have some other for example [3]. Anyway, I should now concentrate on work. bye and Good luck. --- A. L. M. 10:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

So it looks like the rules of Islam include Bin Laden style murder, apki nazron mein. Arrow740 10:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just explaining what (long ago) had upset me, because you'd expressed puzzlement and asked what it was. Not a preparation for any kind of action at all. I understand why you'd be suspicious, though. ArbCom has a history of zooming in on this kind of thing and ignoring the overall situation. I'm not a part of that - if I had any dispute with you, it's only that you continue beating the dead image horse, and that's all (supposing you'd brought the case) I'd bring up.Proabivouac 10:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Religious languages

Before you re-remove Adamic language and Reformed Egyptian from Category:Religious language, the category needs to be defined. No where in its definition is it stated whether it covers religious words, actual whole languages or even whole languages believed by a religion to have exist or existed or all of the above. Don't whittle down the category unless you are sure you are working within a defined parameter agreed to by consensus on the category talk page. Thanks.

PS: Lose your paranoia about wikistalking. I can't help it if you edited 3 pages on my watchlist, can I? I would have performed the edits regardless of the editor.

-SESmith 10:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Religious language presumes that an actual language is involved. If not, it doesn't belong in that category. Please do not add or restore misinformation to Wikipedia.Proabivouac 10:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you'd like to present that presumption as a definition for the category, go ahead. But you cannot assume that that's what the category means just because you believe it. At this point, you believe it is misinformation because you have a definition in mind which no one else has agreed to explicitly in WP. And please do not accuse me of being a "crank". I'm making good faith efforts to resolve the "dispute" using WP methods of reaching consensus on definitions. -SESmith 10:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, "language" means "language." So let's straighten up and fly right here: if something isn't accepted as a language by reliable sources, then we've no business assigning it to this class.Proabivouac 10:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there are "imaginary" languages, "real" languages, "religious" languages—for the latter, some (reliable sources) believe such languages existed and some reject this. It's not just a black and white issue. Go to discuss at talk page for the category. I'm making no attempt to deceive or mislead—I'm merely pointing out that things might be more fuzzy than you assume from others' points of view. –SESmith 11:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No academic scholar will accept any of these as languages. Wikipedia is not a collection of popular misconceptions, much less unpopular ones.Proabivouac 11:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

They don't assert themselves as languages amenable to academic study in the pure sense that you would "study" French or Bengali. They are religious concepts by nature. You can find academic scholars in religious studies who take both very seriously, if you care to look (I assume you haven't). Popularity is not the measure of whether or not a topic is serious or not—I'm not sure what you are getting at using the argument of popularity. (If you're trying to take digs at Mormonism, you should know that I do not claim to be a Latter-day Saint, so you may be preaching to the choir.) If religious beliefs are "misconceptions" to you, that is your POV, but you cannot foist it upon all of WP without a consensus on what a category means. I've started the discussion page there to get opinions on what the category means. If the consensus is to remove them then another category may well be started for these theorized religious languages. I'm not against such a change. All I ask is that it be discussed first and consensus reached. :) –SESmith 11:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hallo, Could you please have a look at this. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll do so shortly.Proabivouac 00:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you will help

I support adding one non-Muslim image in place of one Muslim image so that number of images remain same in the article. Adding Muhammad showing nude I can never support. I hope being a fair person you will support me this time. Right? --- A. L. M. 08:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought you would object to the disemboweled part. Arrow740 08:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740 why you are like that? Do you feel good to see us in pain? --- A. L. M. 08:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just saying that the nude part is really the least of your problems with it. I think for an objective encyclopedia an artist's rendition like that is a good addition. I won't be too upset if it gets removed, though. In response to the last part, I would just say that mental pain is often a choice and I don't see why you would be in pain over something that doesn't do anything. Arrow740 08:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The number of depictions was five by the conclusion of mediation; it is now four because the United States Supreme Court image was removed for some reason. I prefer that one to this one, were it my choice. The Blake image is both notable and topical, you can't deny that, but I do admit that I'm a little uncomfortable with it, just as I'm uncomfortable with the appearance of arbitrary censorship. I'd propose bringing the Court image back, under the reformer section.Proabivouac 08:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be much better. Arrow740 08:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That image does not belong to the article. I think no explaination is required that why it is offensive. --- A. L. M. 09:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's everyone calm down and discuss this on the talk page.Proabivouac 09:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

H

Drop it. Your continual harping on the topic is not going to make anything better.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 09:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidently, I'm not convinced of that. The expression of strong community sentiment against Wikipedia-enabled harassment is valuable both in utility and in principle. The argument for dealing with this through back-channels (to the extent that it was stated on wiki at all) was that the disclosure of personal details and harassment would stop. It didn't. At this point we should be examining further options, such as those (flawed but with some worthy elements) put forth by Hypnosadist. Generally, administrators should not be allowed to unblock users who were blocked for personal attacks and harassment against real world identities without some very concrete reassurances that they won't continue, and should be required to aggressively block or otherwise thwart users engaging in this behavior.

I emphatically do not agree with the unstated premise that the loss of H is an acceptable one, which we should write off and "move on." See also User:Tom harrison.Proabivouac 09:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:Ryulong#Drop it. There's nothing else I can say to either of you in this situation, and my reply there sums up whatever you bring up here.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 09:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because you think editors should be fed to the wolves Ryulong, does not mean others have your lack of caring. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Pro how do youlike the new sig in honor of H. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I DO NOT SUPPORT WHAT HAPPENED IN ANYWAY. I just think that the thread had gotten out of hand.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜) 10:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I can relate to that feeling; it happens to me all the time. If you can accept that others disagree, and that we don't archive without consensus (first attempts are exempt naturally per WP:BOLD), then there's nothing to dispute.Proabivouac 10:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Constitution of Medina

Please comment on this series of edits from Aminz: [4]. Arrow740 08:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I hadn't had a chance to look at this yet.Proabivouac 00:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

His excellency

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you want to prove?

Asma Barlas has edited "Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an" so she is an scholar of Islam. As I said on that talk page, the book you call unreliable is reviewed by Kirsten V. Walles, Department of History, University of Texas at Austin as "the book Believing is a fascinating analysis of the woman’s position in Muslim society.However the basic premise of Asma Barlas’s theories could be applied and used by scholars of many disciplines including religion, gender, and history.." John Esposito reviewed the book saying: "This is an original and, at times, groundbreaking piece of scholarship."

Where is the spirit of truth? --Aminz 09:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

She isn't an RS for everything. Arrow740 09:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Barlas debate[5]? There is no "debate". The matter is so clear. --Aminz 09:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you trying to say?Proabivouac 09:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Arrow lied about me: "As Aminz has indicated, the people she is referring to are not notable in this area,"[6]. And you supported him [7]. --Aminz 09:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The people you indicated that she was referring to are not notable. I thought that your presentation needed no elaboration to reach that conclusion, I guess I was wrong. Arrow740 09:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't "support" anyone "l[ying] about you," I only said that the edit didn't appear to be vandalism.Proabivouac 09:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

To Arrow: I didn't indicate that they were not reliable. I don't have to read the mind of Barlas and name you the Muslims she knows in order to prove that she is right. Now, when I did named Maulana Muhammad Ali, Muqtedar Khan, Moiz Amjad and others as examples of some people who share that view, Proab said that it is Original Research to read the mind of Barlas.

Arrow, please don't tell lie about me from now on.

To Proabivouac: Your removal of all material sourced to Barlas in support of Arrow's lie about me- whatever... it is past --Aminz 09:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Barlas is a reliable source for some of the material sourced to her. Pro had read the talk page, I assume he knew what I meant. The fact remains that her qualifications in this area are very limited. There is a reason why only sources such as her spout this material. Arrow740 09:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Children

Regrding this edit[8], it is important to stress that every child whether born to a Muslim or a non-Muslim family is born Muslim. The natural reaction of most people is that children are born without religion, but are later introduced into it. Also, when you removed, "like the entire humanity", the sentecne stopped making sense where it was, because the statement on the mankind (which was also "born Muslim") was in the previous sentence. Islam is the natural state of affairs whether for a person, for the mankind, or for the entire universe. Animals, planets, stars are also Muslim, for that matter. Beit Or 21:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you were trying to say. "Like the entire humanity" is ungrammatical, and your intention wasn't clear.Proabivouac 21:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is it ungrammatical? Beit Or 22:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Like "mankind", "humanity" doesn't take a definite article (nor does "Islamic law," unless you are talking about one Islamic law in particular.) Additionally, "entire" is not a valid modifier of "humanity" - one might say "the entirety of humanity," or better still, "all humanity" or "humanity as a whole."Proabivouac 22:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The word "entire" always requires a definite article before it. However, I accept your argument on its appropriateness as a modifier in this case. Beit Or 22:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, it only occurs with an article or demonstrative; therefore a word which cannot usually appear with these cannot be modified by "entire." In fact, mass nouns and plurals generally can't take "entire": "the entire water", "the entire zoo animals," etc., unless there's some context in which they're discreet, e.g. "Did you drink the entire [glass of] water that was in the nightstand?" Similarly with nouns which take the definite article only in a discreet context: "Is the entire electricity [i.e. the power] off, or just in that one room?" Along another line: "Did you eat both those entire hamburgers?" Still, these counterexamples might be rejected as formally ungrammatical by many speakers.Proabivouac 23:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, could you please address my attempted copyedit[9]. thanks. ITAQALLAH 22:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, i don't wish to get involved in what's currently occuring, but surely you will agree that this completely undiscussed insertion, timed to coincide with the main page appearance, heavily skews the section in question. ITAQALLAH 03:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The hadith says that every child is born a Muslims. But the parents make him Christian, Jew... or Muslim. The first Muslim is used in a different sense and it implies something else. I don't know what all these details have to do with that section. --Aminz 04:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, I completely agree. I hadn't actually meant to revert Aminz, just Agoras, but I had gone off to check the Teece figures - Agoras was correct on that point. Now, Aminz, in your reverts, you have also reverted for Agoras.Proabivouac 04:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sock of banned user?

Of the editors at Islam, who do you think is a sock of a banned user, of whom do you think he/she is a sock? -- tariqabjotu 05:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, due to his short edit-history and disruptive edit pattern, I'd assumed this to be a sleeper sock of User:His excellency, who, as you may be aware, has been extremely active lately. However, looking through contribs from March, perhaps this is not the case. It's unfortunate that there has been so much sock disruption over the past week (especially) that this is the first assumption that comes to mind. This edit in particular seems quite His excellency-like.Proabivouac 06:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps it's related to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar, given the Indian caste system edits. But I'll leave the unblock for someone else. I still see Arrow (among others) continuing an unnecessary edit war and the sockpuppetry claims as conjecture at this point; the contributions remain only fishy and I don't get the impression Arrow thought (s)he was reverting a sockpuppet. -- tariqabjotu 06:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Main page/Islam

You are welcome. I will certainly keep an eye peeled. :) Green Giant 11:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop now. You have enough revert in Islam for the day. Stop now. --- A. L. M. 12:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at the edit times: it's the WM software. I only realize I've reverted someone after the fact. Accordingly, I am quitting per your request.Proabivouac 13:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. -- A. L. M. 13:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Your remarks on Islam are ill-informed and pretentious. My sources are authoritative. I have been studying Islam for nine years. Thankyou. Langdell 22:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Langdell, please explain how Proabivouac's remarks are "ill-informed and pretentious". S/he does not seem to be ill-informed as far as I can see. Also you shouldn't let us know that you have been "studying Islam for nine years" as it could be easily misconstrued as you claiming you are an expert in that subject. Green Giant 06:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

3rr on Islam

Apprarently, you made more reverts after the 3rr's you had made. It doesn't make me joyful to report you, but if it did, I wouldn't have hesitated a minute to do so given your past history. --Aminz 23:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, your last string of edits last night were ridiculously - and intentionally - disruptive. I agree with your revert of the Sikhism addition, but tagging every sentence with "clarify" while the article is on the main page is absurd. You should have known better.

As for the reverts, the Wikimedia software was lagging, as I'm sure you must have experienced yourself. My last edit was an attempt to restore something I'd not meant to revert - it was posted between the time I'd pressed edit and pressed save - and in doing so I wound up reverting Tigeroo, who similarly posted between the time I'd pressed edit and pressed save. Finally, I gave up per the discussion above. Tigeroo's edit summary referred to the same phenomenon.

The whole point is moot now, anyhow. My goal was only to prevent the main page appearance from being an occasion for last minute changes and POV warring: it appears that others are now doing this work.Proabivouac 23:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I added a true statement trying to "temporarily" neutralize the POV section you and others preserved through edit-warrring. You might think you have won the day by keeping that undiscussed-Bat-Ye'or-style very biased section that Beit Or wrote a few days ago. But in my worldview, you've lost the day and I mean this. --Aminz 23:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are taking this all very personally. I didn't mean for anyone to "win the day" or "lose the day," and I don't think that's the right way to approach Wikipedia.

Your "true statement" may well be true - I don't doubt it myself - but it was off-topic and unencyclopedic.Proabivouac 23:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, I think I have enough consciousness to be able to see what is going on. I am not blind. And my comment was not "personal". --Aminz 06:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidently, I don't have enough consciousness, because I haven't the foggiest idea of what you're talking about. Could you tell me?Proabivouac 06:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

He's saying you're going to eternal torment because you don't share his plans for wikipedia. That's what it seems like. Arrow740 08:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My comments

Please do not remove my comment from other people talk pages. He post on my talk page. I replied him and you remove it. I do not understand your action? --- A. L. M. 08:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he can keep, archive or remove the comments after he saw them. He may reply if he wants. It is up to him. --Aminz 08:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

He's not the only one involved here.Proabivouac 08:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

At least tell why you are removing it? --- A. L. M. 08:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Is your e-mail enabled?Proabivouac 08:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I can leave a comment for Jayjg to check his talk page history. Is that okay with you Proab? --Aminz 09:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes please email me. My email is enabled. -- A. L. M. 09:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Could you let me know which cases you're talking about, please? [10]

Battle of Khaybar

Proabivouac, I have removed Mubarakpuri, and shown that Nomani is RS, Watt and Stillman you agree are RS, then what is the problem?Bless sins 13:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you have not shown that Nomani is a reliable source. Remember that arguing to your own satisfaction isn't the same as convincing others. Tigeroo's assertion that the findings of academic historians need to "balanced" by one partisan POV is one I don't share, and has no more to do with Nomani in particular than it does to Maududi, Qutb or any other activist/ideologue.Proabivouac 21:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on. On the talk page I showed two reasons for Nomani's scholarship. 1. He was a professor at a university, 2. a scholarly (an academic journal) source called him a "historian". However, your above still doesn't explain why you are mass reverting edits that contain Watt and Stillman.Bless sins 13:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we focus on evaluating the Watt and Stillman material, and leave Nomani out of it for now?Proabivouac 00:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

WHat is there to "evaluate" Watt and Stillman? Aren't they RS? Please don't say that they are "religious partisan sources".

Secondly, I've already left Mubarakpuri out. Me, Tigeroo and others are discussing him on talk. I've provided you with a scholarly source that recognizes Nomani as a historian, and that Nomani was a professor. Is that not enough?Bless sins 00:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion on track, shall we? I didn't say anything about Mubarakpuri, while Tigeroo's claims that Islamic religious works in general should be seen as a sort of second academia are far more sweeping than any particular point about Nomani or about this article, and should really be discussed at WP:RS. What I am suggesting is to look at the Watt and Stillman material and evaluate how it is best characterized in the article without getting entangled in the broader partisan source issue. You keep asking, "why are you removing Watt and Stillman?" so let's solve that problem.Proabivouac 01:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

But I don't understand why Watt and Stillman are a "problem". You have never - ever - provided a reason (as far as my memory serves me) as to why Watt and Stillman should be "evaluated". Anyways, I think we should keep parallel discussions going (i.e. we talk about Watt and Stillman, as well as Nomani). I have separated the issues below.Bless sins 01:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, Watt and Stillman are not a problem. The material should be evaluated just like all material is to be evaluated. In short, I'm neither endorsing or opposing your characterization of them, but agreeing (as I always have) that we should be using them, and let's take it from there. Bundling them all together has led to this apparently terminal confusion wherein you think (or at least pretend to think as a useful talking point) that I have something against the most respected academic scholars.Proabivouac 01:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by "evaluate"? I really don't understand the way you use that term.

Secondly, I don't want to stop any discussion about the inclusion of Nomani. So let's "evaluate" Watt and Stillman, and let's also reach an agreement on Nomani.Bless sins 19:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wael Hallaq

Was there any reason for calling university homepage of Wael Hallaq unreliable or you just wanted to annoy me? --Aminz 20:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The peer-review standards for personal websites aren't very high. Please don't repeat such edits in the future. Arrow740 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer-review for what? For scientific discoveries? --Aminz 21:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is that one's claims (or one's employer's claims) of one's own importance aren't as credible as they would be had they come from a third party. Amazing that this should have to be spelled out to you.Proabivouac 21:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You just wanted to annoy me; no other reasons to doubt such a thing would appear in the university homepage of such an scholar unreasonably. Now, it has been also sourced to Cambridge university press itself. --Aminz 21:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, haven't we been through this before? A publisher is not a source. Who wrote that?Proabivouac 21:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In most cases, words like "leading" are inappropriate as per Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. Beit Or 21:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Completely unproductive

Can we drop this? It's completely unproductive.Proabivouac 22:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure to whom that was in response, but I agree. However, I have a reputation to maintain. There are only so many of Arrow's accusations I can ignore before I have to address a few of them. I'm finished trying to dissuade Arrow, but it's hard to tell whether others agree with him. -- tariqabjotu 22:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Per my indent, it was to Arrow740. As I said at the time, I didn't think Arrow740 needed a block; however, I assumed you'd meant to be even-handed between Arrow740 and User:Agoras (here was the problem, IMO,) and send a message to others that blocks were being handed out for edit-warring, which is a worthy goal, and I wish it had succeeded in preventing the meltdown to follow. I don't rule out that bias might play some role in your, my or anyone else's decisions, but that doesn't ispso facto make them improper; it was as comfortably within the realm of your proper discretion as is Blnguyen's block of Aminz.

One aspect of this that does really bug me, though, is that Arrow740 had just lawfully reported Agoras' 3RR violation on 3RR. I'm very opposed to blocking reporters who haven't violated it, as is occasionally done, for the simple reason that it discourages reports, thus undermining the functionality of the noticeboard. As long as there is to be a 3RR noticeboard (as opposed to an edit-warring noticeboard,) that's what it should be. However, I'm not at all certain that that's actually how you learned about the dispute.

If you look at Agoras' contribs, it is very probably a sock of some other editor, pulled out of the toolchest to edit-war on Islam for main page day. He's not bothered to contest his block, or said or done anything since then. That's something you should have seen before blocking Arrow740, IMO. Socks have done a lot of pwning lately.Proabivouac 23:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Being psychic is not a pre-requisite to being an admin. If someone suspects a user is a sockpuppet, they are supposed to go to WP:RCU (among other locations), not continue edit warring. -- tariqabjotu 00:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't have to be psychic, but had only to listen to what several people were telling you at the time. You agreed the account looked fishy, but Arrow740 was still blocked. WP:RfCU (to say nothing of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets) takes too much time, and cannot stop DavidYork71 types like His excellency from opening new edit-warring SPAs (or sacking sleepers) ad infinitum as real users get blocked. In any event, reverting socks is exempt from 3RR, it stands to reason that it is also exempt from edit-warring which falls short of 3RR.Proabivouac 00:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This was addressed earlier. Looking over RfCU, you know how many times people are wrong about users being sockpuppets even where there is decent evidence. Being disruptive on the Islam article (especially the Islam article as ToFA) is not enough to call one His excellency beyond a reasonable doubt (even you acknowledged uncertainty). Obviously, you were right here. But you have the benefit of hindsight. RfCU is imperfect and sometimes slow, but the quick reverting (by the same user(s) no less) did nothing but accomplish HE's goal of disrupting the Islam article. This blocking approach was affirmed by After Midnight. And a different approach was used by Blnguyen. Neither I nor Blnguyen did anything wrong and the surfacing of HE does nothing to change that. -- tariqabjotu 06:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Blnguyen blocked editors with 4 reverts and unblocked me when you shouldn't have blocked me for various reasons, one of which being that I had only three reverts, another of which is that as Pro noted, I was restoring the FA version from suspicious vandalistic attacks, and did not take advantage of the opportunity to reinsert my material the established Muslims had objected to. You have recently neglected to block Muslims with 4 reverts (not to mention Aminz) but blocked me (who the banned user HE, who is welcome on your talk page, calls "anti-Islam") when you clearly shouldn't have, as has been repeatedly demonstrated. And if you keep trying to point to BlNguyen's actions as a defence, I will keep emphasizing how radically different your actions are from his from the point of view of policies. Arrow740 07:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"…but the quick reverting (by the same user(s) no less) did nothing but accomplish HE's goal of disrupting the Islam article."

I'm sorry, but that is mind-bogglingly backwards. That the contents of the main page featured article aren't to be decided by SPA edit-warring socks of banned editors is a no-brainer.Proabivouac 07:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Update

User:Agoras, User:Dashes, User:Lovegroup and User:Lovegroup5 have been confirmed by checkuser as sockpuppets of User:His excellency. Hate to say it, but both you and Arrow740 have been pwnd.Proabivouac 00:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha... pwned. Now sure why you would say that though. -- tariqabjotu 00:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Agreement

Arrow740, if you can accept that Tariqabjotu 1) would block the sockpuppet of a banned editor if he knew that's what it was and 2) would not block an established editor (or any non-banned editor) for reverting a banned editor, if he knew that's what it was - and i don't think anyone would dispute this - then the problem boils down not to bias, but to how we are dealing with sockpuppets - that is, not just ineffectually, but counterproductively. For example, above there is a thread in which the sockpuppeteer appears to have successfully incited Tariqabjotu against Blnguyen, at least partially on the basis of a CU-confirmed lie ("nor am I any editor among these logs.") The real problem here is that the statements of established editors (e.g. sock id's) are ignored while the testimony of transparent socks is taken at face value. The naivite is on display nowhere more strongly than when Tariqabjotu unblocked User:Lovegroup with the summary, "probably an experienced user wishing to remain anonymous." Also see the progressive blocks of User:Habibz who was likewise already accused of the same thing: if that wasn't excessive caution then, it is now. So I propose a way forward: Arrow740, apologize to Tariqabotu for assuming and accusing him of religious bias - it's unnecessary, it's inappropriate and it poisons the atmosphere while accomplishing nothing. Tariqabjotu, face it, you blew it (as we all do from time to time) - apologize to Arrow740 for having blocked him, and from now on, give your colleagues a little credit: our skepticism has proven a more reliable guide than your own caution. Finally, let us keep this talk page and others free of further attempts to manipulate us into conflict by "experienced user[s] wishing to remain anonymous."Proabivouac 23:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your first paragraph is on-target. The problem is that there was little evidence that the particular editor was HE. The editor was disruptive to the Islam article, but frankly that might easily describe a lot of religiously-zealous people who rarely edit. Reverting sockpuppets is okay, but reverting new editors learning the ropes is not (even though some may want to think it's okay). At that point in the time, it was inconclusive which it was. Yes, you and Arrow had hunches, but, as I said earlier, hunches with questionable can, and often are, wrong. No one (not on July 1 or since then) filed a RfCU. No one went to ANI, raising concerns about this particular editor. I can remember an article that faced a similar flurry of disruption (albeit to a lesser degree) when it made it to the Main Page (Jerusalem, from May 23). Instead of incessantly reverting every passer-by that decided to contest Jerusalem's status as the capital of Israel, I brought the matter up at ANI, suggesting that those reverting such edits not be subject to the 3RR. It did not take much time for a quick consensus to arise. But that route was not taken... So in the course of the twenty-four hours, there was blocking, protecting the article, and, eventually, Moreschi (talk · contribs) putting his foot down are reverting to the pre-FA version. There's no one way to eat a Reese's and there's no one way to address a unique situation like this. All three methods were permissible at varying degrees.

Your second paragraph, however, is not correct. The sockpuppet's comment on my talk page did not incite me to comment on Blnyugen's talk page; I was in the process of writing my comment on Blnyugen's talk page at the time of HE's comment. I didn't even look at HE's comment until I finished writing my comment, as I didn't want to interrupt writing what I was writing to address that orange bar. So, there's really nothing more to say about that.

The last sentence of your third paragraph is the only thing I agree with there. Yes, it was not excessive caution then. And yes, it's excessive caution now. But the time to act was then, not now; it's so easy for you to analyze the situation now knowing who was or was not a sockpuppet. Lovegroup and Lovegroup5 did not go into articles to cause disruption; the users merely commented on my talk page, so there was no reason to raise a ruckus at that point (remember there are legitimite uses of sockpuppets and we do have to remember to assume good faith). From this vantage point, I'm sure we all agree what should have been done; Arrow not blocked, Agoras blocked indefinitely, Lovegroup blocked indefinitely, Lovegroup5 blocked indefinitely, Dashes blocked indefinitely. But it's silly to condemn for what I did not know.

Now your last paragraph. I maintain I have nothing for which to apologize; I have made mistakes based on misreading something or something in that manner, but my stance on this has remained the same throughout. There was no pro-Muslim bias. The block was reasonable given the information at the time. I wouldn't block someone who was reverting a user that was clearly a sockpuppet beyond a reasonable doubt (as in not where one says perhaps this is not the case). This has never changed. I don't care if Arrow believes any one of those points is false or wrong or whatever. It's not a big deal. So essentially, Arrow can do whatever he wants – apologize or harbor ill will toward me or whatever else. As long as it does not interfere with what I'm on Wikipedia to do, I don't care. The best way to end this was to just not comment on it anymore. That's what I planned to do until you brought this here. I appreciate the attempt, but I don't feel there's anything else to do. And I'm not sure how anything after "and from now on" and your mocking me was supposed to do any good. -- tariqabjotu 00:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Having said my peace for now, I'll be on my way.Proabivouac 02:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Restored text

I have restored the following text, which you suppressed at Mirepoix (cuisine):

"The three ingredients key to a particular cuisine, vary from culture to culture. The term is most commonly used in reference to Louisiana Creole and Cajun cuisine, where the trinity is chopped celery, bell peppers, and onions. A soffritto is the classic basis of Italian cuisines, varying somewhat by region, and Sofrito serves a similar purpose in Spanish cuisines."

The better sort of Wikipedians are even more careful about what they delete than what they add. It is never too late to learn this. Your deletion of "the Holy Trinity" was quite justified, however. Do be more careful. Thank you. --Wetman 08:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, suppressed. Heh. That's what I do. But what has any of this to do with Mirepoix? (It's also unsourced) Proabivouac 08:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Thanks

No prob, just enjoying vandal whacking. Peace. Spartan-James 02:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Grandia1

I took it off AIV because you're alleging sockpuppetry (although with a very good case), so that should go to WP:AN/I. Daniel Case 04:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Chaser has blocked the anon for 24 hours [11]. Since this just came up today, as he said, we don't know what motivated this. I'll try to keep an eye on the situation, as I'm sure he will as well. Daniel Case 04:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Another thing to check

See also Slavery in Modern Africa, where all mention of Islam has disappeared recently. Arrow740 09:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed. Are you going to follow up on it? Arrow740 06:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I saw the 3RR post. Arrow740 07:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No word there yet, or elsewhere. Arrow740 09:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Motivation?

Proabivouac, I left a question for you about the recent personal attack on your talk page. Thanks.--Chaser - T 03:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an ongoing conflict with him and most other editors to Muhammad. I'll answer in a little bit with some diffs (though a few of the last four diffs I gave are illustrative.)Proabivouac 03:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Other diffs won't be necessary.--Chaser - T 03:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I take that back. See ANI.--Chaser - T 03:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Provided.Proabivouac 06:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Offensive Jihad

Hi, I hope my new source satisfy you. I put it in the talk page(Talk:Islam#Twelvers viewpoint of Jihad). Please add it to the article because I can't do so today.([WP:3RR]])--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look.Proabivouac 06:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

3rr Again

You have violated 3RR once again. Removing the picture is vandalism? I do not think so and so is many others. BTW I have not removed the picture even once. But you still blindly reverted me. --- A. L. M. 10:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I should report you this time. It is because I do not think that if I have no right to remove pic then you have right to add them back. You have already done that 100s of time. --- A. L. M. 10:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The incident has already been reported here. User:124.29.249.34 was blocked not for 3RR (though he/she had reverted seven times), but for vandalism.[12] Hence, to undo his/her seventh revert is merely the undoing of vandalism. I am heartened, though, to see your concerned for 3RR - no doubt you would have reported anon if I'd not beaten you to it.Proabivouac 11:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you have '100s' of time restored those disputed freaky pictures. Now its time for you to end this edit war. I have reported you and you can defence yourself there. --- A. L. M. 11:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have self-reverted according to your vexatious report.Proabivouac 11:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You can post that at 3rr page. I am going to get back to work. --- A. L. M. 11:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Just stop restoring those pictures. Stop it and bye. --- A. L. M. 11:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Re WP:SSP

FayssalF, someone with the block button needs to apply the duck test to this page, for example this report. These kinds of games make a collective fool of us.Proabivouac 09:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pro. I had asked you before if you would like to get the firing tools (kidding) ;) Well, all i had to do for now is to post this issue again at the ANI for more feedback. We can be patient and see. No rush for now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Time to extend His excellency's ban to indef?

Just happened to see your AIV report on that possible His excellency sock ... and from what I'm seeing, several others have cropped up before. Somehow I think it's time to extend his ban to indef.Blueboy96 00:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It was my understanding that he/she was community banned at some point. I'll try to find a link.Proabivouac 00:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

He was under a six-month ArbCom ban, but it was extended to this coming December per this discussion.Blueboy96 00:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that link. It's quite confusing, as the notice accompanying the closure (BhaiSaab 1 yr., His excellency 6 mos.) seems to mismatch the conclusions of the discussion (BhaiSaab not banned, His excellency banned.) This is the link I'd had in mind:[13]Proabivouac 01:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Jerpeegordon

Hi you said that User:Jerpeegordon was a sockpuppet of Kirbytime's. I'd appreciate if you could give me a link to the relevent discussion which determined that the user was a sockpuppet. Thanks.Bless sins 13:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's right there on his user page:[14]Proabivouac 18:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific please? Is there a checkuser that implicated Jerpeegordon as a sockpuppet of KirbyTime.Bless sins 22:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Who are you?

FOA 09:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by FollowerofAllah (talk • contribs)

Well, who are you? We can start there.Proabivouac 09:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have clearly caught your attention. I would not have noticed you otherwise. Is that what you intended? FOA 09:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by FollowerofAllah (talk • contribs)

When you cross-post to every noticeboard, you will get everyone's attention, not necessarily good attention. Flooding talk pages with long essays doesn't help, either. Whatever it is you're trying to accomplish, keep it lawful and keep it sane. Throwing a fit is disruptive, and may lead to a block. Please contribute in the normal way, and if you don't know what that is, listen to those around you.Proabivouac 09:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I am rarely less than lawful and sane. So far, many of the people I've encountered here have been cross and combative. I don't throw fits, which is an extremely judgemental way to put it, I offered my explanation as to why I revise the way I do. At least I do that instead of just deleting text because I just don't like it, and throwing in some dismissive comment about it. Or just because it doesn't suit my own biases. I would be ashamed to treat others the way people act here, then threatening them with blocking for responding. It's nothing to be smug about. FOA 09:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by FollowerofAllah (talk • contribs)

Crossposting to every noticeboard looks like throwing a fit, whether or not you mean it that way. Wait for people to respond. Also, try not to build enemies lists - this looks bad. Just relax, and remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground.09:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Message

I sent you an e-mail. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Spike Wilbury, got it…I'll respond in a bit. Thanks!Proabivouac 21:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Allah illustration

Please could you add some further information to the talk page of the article to expand upon your edit comment? Thanks SP-KP 17:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Done.Proabivouac 21:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:

On this particular matter, User:MezzoMezzo'religious affilition counts for everything and letting him edit the article would be destroying the encyclopaedia's credibility, if it has any left. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 07:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all your comments on the noticeboard, it does help to have a third party chime in. I'm actually kind of shocked that things have escalated this far. MezzoMezzo 14:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No trouble, MezzoMezzo. Stop by anytime.Proabivouac 00:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

AN

Why the revert?--Rambutan (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You've been accused of being a banned user, and calling Ryulong and Blnguyen vandals doesn't help. However, I won't revert again, but will let others handle this.Proabivouac 07:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, where have I been accused of being a banned user? I reverted the removal of an IP's request, since nobody had any evidence that the IP was a banned user. Nobody accused me! Plus, just what were your grounds for removal? Is there a policy against anything in that AN thread?--Rambutan (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I won't revert again, but will leave this for others to address.Proabivouac 07:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean "I'm sorry, I was wrong to say that you've been accused of being a banned user"?--Rambutan (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant to say I would let others handle it. But, as you're seeking an apology, I apologize for saying you'd been accused of being a banned user, when I should have said that you've been accused of proxying for a banned user. I hope that solves our problem.Proabivouac 07:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)