User talk:Anonymous editor/archive2

Your message
By the time I got to it, SlimVirgin had already blocked. I'll keep my eye on the article, though. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 14:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edip Yuksel
He's been using an anonymous IP for editing; I've reported him for vandalism. I don't think he counts as encyclopedic, if it's just him and one friend. He should be deleted from Wikipedia, and the United Submitters International and Quran Alone articles edited to be NPOV, as I suggest on Talk:Quran Alone. Zora 01:04, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jihad
I got that message halfway through writing my response to the guy. You'll see it shortly. gren 28 June 2005 05:19 (UTC)

I am not well enough versed with the present state of the article to make a judgment on what exactly needs to be done, but I think it's safe to say that if PeterCh's edits are anything like his talk comment than there could be a problem. I do wish we could go into some average historical Muslim's mind and see what they thought of jihad. Writing on the concept of jihad tends to talk about war because it is definitely a more extraordinary event than inner struggle. The problem I see is that both sides could cite an endless number of sources arguing either way and what some will call historical others will say is revisionist history. Since from reading a book that shed some light on life in Al-Andalus I assume that the average person did not often think of war (when they were not in or near it) and if they were versed in theology at all would likely not have found jihad to be only a military struggle. I also think a lot has to do with the conditions of the society. If they were constantly warring than It's likely that they have a different view of jihad. I ramble. gren 28 June 2005 05:36 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad
About the Ahmadinejad article, the reason that info is irrelevant there is because it does not really add to anything about that canditate. The criteria for how someone is elected should be added to an article that outlines how the elections are performed within that country, not on the canditates or president-elect's page. That's like me giving a complete detail about how elections are conducted in the USA on Al Gore's page! I think you understand. Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 05:48 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the message. Normally I'd agree with you, but, vis-a-vis Iranian elections, people are typically unaware of procedure that's radically different than what they are used to in English-speaking countries. People are likely to assume that his election was typically democratic. I see your point, and I think that mention of this election detail should be placed less prominently in the article (in the Biography section perhaps?). HKT 28 June 2005 05:58 (UTC)


 * See we can't really assume who is reading the article, as wikipedia is an international encyclopedia so it is up to one's own desire whether they want to learn more about how candidates are chosen. Every country has a different method (some slightly more than others), but I mantain that should not be mentioned on a person's page, but rather on one about the electional criteria or the "elections in country X". Also whether a country has performed democratically or not is personal opinion and should be avoided for neutrality. Thanks.--Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 06:00 (UTC)


 * (1.) English wikipedia is primarily in existence for people from English-speaking countries. I think that providing information about something that most people probably wouldn't have any prompt to look up is worthwhile. (2.) Does such an article about Iranian election protocol already exists? Is such protocol mentioned anywhere on English Wikipedia? (3.) I used "typically democratic" loosely to refer to election-types that most English-speakers are accustomed to, and they are not used to such restrictions. (Strictly speaking, though, Democracy has a definition and is not a matter of opinion). Thank you. HKT 28 June 2005 06:19 (UTC)


 * HTK, strictly speaking though, regardless of various "democracy definitions" and who or who doesn't view the encyclopedia, this does not need to be mentioned on a candidate/president-elect's page. Surely you agree that the appropriate mention (if any) would be on an article about elections in that country? Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 06:24 (UTC)


 * It certainly should be mentioned somewhere. I continue to think that it should also be mentioned, hinted to, or at least linked to in this article. If readers would have no indication that such information exists, than I would consider the article incomplete and lacking context. P.S. I'm still wondering if the info exists anywhere on English Wikipedia. Do you know if it does? HKT 28 June 2005 06:32 (UTC)


 * No I don't know if it does exist but I am sure it probably does. I don't believe that this article needs to hint nor mention that as in many cases that would be considered POV and inappropriate for the article content. Thanks for your message. --Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 06:35 (UTC)


 * Call me thick, but why would it "be considered POV and inappropriate for the article content?" P.S. We just seem to disagree, so I'm moving this to the article's talk page. Perhaps we'll get some consensus. HKT 28 June 2005 06:42 (UTC)


 * Do not move it to page yet as it is not a large issue. I agree that there should be a link, but I do not agree that hinting the opinion that the elections are "undemocratic" is acceptable to the article. Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 06:45 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I got your message right after I moved the discussion. (It doesn't have to be a big issue to be on the talk page, though). Anyway, the statement doesn't say anything about democracy, and perhaps we can get consensus on the wording of the statement, too. Regarding a link, if you can get one quick (one that's not so inconspicuous as to go unnoticed) you might stop this disagreement quickly. At this point, though, I think consensus is what we need. HKT 28 June 2005 06:56 (UTC)


 * Its okay. I edited out some of the talk page "like" phrases in the discussion too. Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 07:01 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding the statement and more background discussion to the talk page. HKT 28 June 2005 06:56 (UTC)


 * No problem. --Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 07:03 (UTC)

Edip Yuksel.
I didn't think it was vanity because I think he is as notable as Ali Sina especially since from what I can tell he was decently known for his Turkish works. How they are going about making the article is probably bad... and probably has lots of POV in it. I have no problem with a long encyclopedic article at all though, it's a good thing as long as it's NPOV. What is going to be bad is if users start to try to link the main Islam page or the Qur'an page to Edip. He is not notable enough for that because he is not notable to most Muslims. He's not notable for Qur'an interpretation I don't believe either. (although some of the westerners who write a little bit about hte Qur'an don't seem too notable either). So, as long as his name doesn't get stuck in prominent places where it doesn't belong I think it's fine. Another problem is he is a hard guy to source just like Ali Sina... we only have what his site says more or less (unless someone can read the Turkic languages which might have more information). We surely don't need all of those works listed under his name... I'm not exactly sure how to go about it. gren 28 June 2005 21:08 (UTC)

Talk:Jihad
Please read Wikipedia: No Personal Attacks and Wikipedia: Remove Personal Attacks. Your comments on the Jihad article were inflammatory and not at all helpful. And please stop removing my strikethroughs. This is not vandalism, I am keeping with Wikipedia policy on obviously inflammatory personal attacks.Funnuraba! Ya-Ha! Kurita77(talk) 29 June 2005 15:44 (UTC)

Stop being a vigilante. You have no authority to strike through other user's comments, unless they are clear attacks. Even dab (an administrator) said that Brandon's stuff did not classify as personal attacks. Please read the vandalism policy. If you do this again I will report you. Thank you. --Anonymous editor June 29, 2005 15:46 (UTC)
 * no sweat, AE, reverts are cheap, and the case has been taken care of for now. regards, dab (&#5839;) 29 June 2005 15:57 (UTC)
 * look, I'm not in charge of this case; you can add that to Eknots RfAr, or bring it up on AN/I. It will just be a matter of blocking new socks as they appear, hoping that no innocent users are hit along the way. dab (&#5839;) 29 June 2005 16:22 (UTC)

Thanks Dab. I am wondering: is it also a coincedence that anon IP User:130.203.202.156 (talk • contribs) came back the same day enviro did? He/she also said that he was banned and proceeded to make similar edits to enviroknot. Check out recent contributions and User talk:SlimVirgin under "blocking bias". This user was previously caught vandalizing my page and user:Mustafaa's page. Perhaps this info should should be presented as evidence as they "both" came back within the same hour after a long time being blocked. Seems to me like enviro might be using an anon proxy routed through the University of Pennsylvania. --Anonymous editor June 29, 2005 16:07 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hey, a barnstar! Thank you for being so thoughtful. I really appreciate it. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) June 29, 2005 18:33 (UTC)

User:69.174.192.67
I blocked him a moment before SlimVirgin did; two barrels of a shotgun, that's us. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 29 June 2005 18:40 (UTC)

Thanks much for the kind words about the RfA...
... and, even more, for the encouraging air of sanity and objectivity that pervades your edits. We seem curiously symmetrical in our outlook on life and religion ... in fact, judging only from the evidence on WP, I'm not entirely sure we're not the same person, operating in parallel universes, your cosmos slightly more likely to impart the virtues of tact and patience than mine. :)

This leads me to wonder whether we would, as I am prone to fear, cause an apocalyptic antimatter collision if we were to email one another. (Perhaps we COULD email one another, but COULD NOT go so far as to open the messages. I don't know.) If you ever find yourself curious about all this, as I am, and can see your way past the obvious breaches in anonymity necessary for you to do so, I'd love to hear from you.

Ma-salaam, BrandonYusufToropov 29 June 2005 19:10 (UTC)

Edip Yuksel
The Edip Yuksel article was given a speedy deletion, because it has already been deleted TWICE, and recreated against Wikipedia consensus. Recreated pages like that are fair game.

As for an article on Code 19 -- no way! Now there might be a need for an article on Islam and numerology, using some of the material collected for the United Submitters article. I had never heard of adjab and it might be a good idea to have more on the subject. There might also -- I'm free associating here -- be a need for an article on the folklore of Islam, superstititions of Islam, or something like that. Significant numbers, wearing Hand-of-Fatima amulets, blue beads ... stuff that you as a convert might have encountered at the mosque. I'm not saying that this is PART of Islam, just that these are things that some Muslims do. (Easter eggs are not part of Christianity, but they are something some Christians do ... you get the idea.) Zora 29 June 2005 21:21 (UTC)

Hey hey
Hey. I am Irishpunktom, not IrishpunkTom. It annoys me that someone is pretending to be me, but they are only editing my user page, and rarely at that, so it's no big deal. thanks for your concern though! --Irishpunktom\talk June 30, 2005 00:14 (UTC)


 * no, No, that I am, Been boycotting nestle since my time in the SWP, But I'll be damned if I let someone else write edit my personal info! --Irishpunktom\talk June 30, 2005 00:32 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, much appreciated! --Irishpunktom\talk June 30, 2005 18:19 (UTC)

Umar
Salam, brother in Islam!

If what done is done, and whe should forget it, why are whe Muslims?

Ill try to also present the Sunni view better.

Have a nice day and ma salam!

--Striver 30 June 2005 01:07 (UTC)

Striver's edits
You can find his recent edits by clicking on a diff -- say on Muhammad and then clicking on the contribs link. That will give you his recent contribs. You can expand the list by asking for more and more days. So far as I know, he has been working on articles re Aisha, Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Muawayya (sp?), Yazid, and a number of others. I redid the Yazid article, unless he's worked on it again. Zora 30 June 2005 01:16 (UTC)

IrishpunkTom
Hi, I just noticed that too, so I blocked him indefinitely for impersonation. SlimVirgin (talk) June 30, 2005 02:13 (UTC)

Terrorism in Kashmir

 * Well, there are some differences which need to be sorted out. I'm tired of reverting yr edits:
 * You're giving an inaccurate reason. Pakistan opposes LoC being converted into Intl. boundary because it aims to gain control over the Kashmir valley. Mentioning who gets greater control is pointless.
 * Buddhists have never shown a desire to join India!!! Can you please give the source of this statement. There are no buddhists org demanding Kashmir being separated from India. Buddhists have also never publicily shown any desire for Free kashmir. Afterall, India is the birthplace of their religion.
 * A politician is one who practices politics. Similarly, a militant is one who practices militancy. What do you mean by avoid calling those people "militant".
 * Please site the source for yr statement: both Pakistan and MANY Kashmiris reject the plan as India gets greater control over the region.''
 * The very fact that the ruling PDP has formed an alliance w/ Indian National Congress and National Conference has close links w/ Hindu-nationalists BJP proves how much pro-Indian they are. The only difference bet them and Kashmiri separatists is that they don't beat drums.


 * In an attempt to make the article neutral, you are making it more inaccurate. I would suggest that you discuss the main conflicting points before making changes to them. Otherwise, I have no other option except to revert yr edits. Thanks --IncMan June 30, 2005 03:40 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Okay I have explained my edits to the article below. Here are the statements from the article that you left off:


 * The Status quo - Currently a boundary - the Line of Control (LOC)- divides the region in two, with one part administered by India and one by Pakistan. India would like to formalise this status quo and make it the accepted international boundary. Factors Opposing - Both Pakistan and Kashmiri militants reject the plan as they aim to get greater control over the region. - So, you are saying that only Pakistan and Kashmiri militants oppose the line? What about all the other Kashmiri Muslims in both territories "Jammu" and "Azad Kashmir" ? We can't have a definite statement like this, who knows how many people that are non-Pakistani and not militant are against it. Secondly, it is not only because Pakistan wants greater control over the line, it is because India unfairly gets the larger 55% of Kashmir, where as Pakistan gets way less. Pakistan had initially been against Kashmiri occupation in the first place, but ofcourse some attitudes have changed over the years. 


 * Kashmir becomes a part of India - Though New Delhi would have no objections to such a plan, the muslims in Pakistan-administered Kashmir have never shown any desire to join India. - So what about the other Muslims in non-Pakistan-administered kashmir? What about the Muslims in Indian-administered, they have never clearly shown that they want to join India; infact they probably oppose it. What about other minority religions? 


 * Entire Kashmir under Pakistani control - Giving Pakistan full control over Jammu and Kashmir. Factors Opposing - Though the Muslims in Kashmir might agree to such a proposal, the Hindus of Jammu and the Buddhists of Ladakh would object the outcome.  - I agree with this statement. But notice through how it clearly says the "Muslims of Kashmir", which once again shows that clearly that there are Muslims on both sides of the LoC which don't want to join India.

So hopefully I have clarified what I mean. Also I agree that this article does not belong in the Terrorism in Kashmir article but in the Kashmir one. We will have to see to that when that article is unlocked. Once again thanks for your message and I am kind of glad to finally find an Indian who is actually discussing this with me rather than childishly calling me "Islamist" or "Mr. Pakistan" (even though I am American). I am just trying to make the article more neutral in good faith as ages of pro-India editors have inserted their anti-Pakistan POV.--Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 04:05 (UTC)

1. Since we don't know how many Kashmiri muslims are pro-Pakistan its better not to mention it at all. India should have held a plebisite but since they haven't we don't know whats Kashmiris opnion. 2. If you combine Pak- and China- administered Kashmir, its more than 52%- can tell you from a book on Kashmir by J.R. Rai. Then how can you say that India gets 55% of Kashmir? 3. Again, Pakistan has held a plebisite in its territory where majority says that they r pro-Pakistan. But since there has been no such plebisite in Jammu and Kashmir we cannot come to conclusions by ourselves. This is an encyclopedia not a newspaper article where an editor can express his own opinions. 4. It says MIGHT agree.

If you wanna ask for my opinion I think Kashmir should become independent. Economically, Kashmir is not of much use to India as it has to spend thrice more money on it than what the local Kashmiri economy generates. I see no logic in the entire dispute. I am also in favour of a plebisite being held in Kashmir. I haven't try to insert any anti-Pakistan viewpoint, but if I have please tell me so that we both could make "apporpiate" changes. Thanks --IncMan June 30, 2005 04:32 (UTC)


 * If you combine Pak- and China- administered Kashmir, its more than 52%- can tell you from a book on Kashmir by J.R. Rai. Then how can you say that India gets 55% of Kashmir? - '''Nonetheless if 52% is Pak and China combined, then obviously India would have 48% which is larger than both Pak and China. China is said to have atleast 6%.Thus, India's share is still larger than Pakistan's...correct?


 *  This is an encyclopedia not a newspaper article where an editor can express his own opinions. - Therefore I suggest that making incorrect claims that only "the Hindus of Jammu and the Buddhists of Ladakh would object the outcome" as that is not supported by a survey. Also other anti-Pakistan propaganda found on the article should be trashed.


 * I agree that Kashmir should be independant for the sake of all those dying in the battles. It is sad to see such a beautiful place being destroyed by tanks and gunfire. Anyways, I think we should work on making the article more neutral, but we need a Pakistani person too inorder to get it balanced. I am just a mediator here. Also please do not add the pieces you did into the article last time (before I reverted it) because that is highly point of view and if this article is going to be cleaned up and made neutral, those things don't have any place in it. Thank you. --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 04:47 (UTC)


 * Correct, but the only muslim majority region under Indian control is Kashmir valley, which is way smaller than Pak-administered kashmir.
 * I suggest the statement being changed to this: it is likely for the Hindus of Jammu and the Buddhists of Ladakh to object the outcome;

The points which I re-added were quite neutral except the one alleging Pakistani military to cover-fire infiltrators. But I am afraid its quite true. I will change its language to suit all. It is a very important piece of info as it depicts the consequences of the cease-fire bet the 2 countries. I will ask a Pakistani Wikipedian to review the article. Thanks --IncMan June 30, 2005 05:04 (UTC)


 * Ok, I made those sections more neutral, but if you need a Pakistani editor, make sure he is a well known Pakistani editor and not simply a sockpuppet of an Indian editor. Sorry to say this but there are many sockpuppets out there. Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 05:15 (UTC)


 * Think asking User:IFaqeer to review the article is not a bad idea. I have no objections to yr recent edits. Thanks --IncMan June 30, 2005 05:26 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I will see if I can get more Pakistani editors to the articles too. IFaqeer is a good choice, I think. --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 05:28 (UTC)

I urge you guys to discuss this on the talk page of the article. IndiBoy


 * No it's fine here because it goes uninterrupted by certain anon IP editors that love to make attacks against people. Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 05:33 (UTC)


 * Please don't get too many Pakistani editors otherwise the article would become messy. :-) I hope you get my point. --IncMan June 30, 2005 05:36 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I think if there are so many Indian editors on the article equally many Pakistani editors are needed. But yes I understand that the situation between both sides can get a little "messy" like you said. --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 05:44 (UTC)

iFaqeer's comments

 * cross-posting at talk:Anon Editor talk:Nichalp and talk:IncMan

I really, really like what you folks have done at Terrorism in Kashmir and what you want to do. Here, quickly, are my comments on the article:


 * The article--especially the intro--seems to conflate "militancy" with "terrorism". Even to say that "all militancy in Kashmir is of a terroristic nature" is a valid point of view--one I disagree with, but still a valid one for a person to hold. But that's not what the article says; it just uses the two words almost as synonyms. It starts out doing what I am saying, in Background and the Flashpoint section. Then gets mixed up. In fact, looking more closely, the headings and the actual text seem to be disjointed in this regard. The text is better off, IMHO.
 * I have only been able to skim the article, but it seems like it really is a better-than-average description of the militancy in Kashmir. Why not call it that? I am not saying there is no terrorism in Kashmir, but let's point out what, in the whole mix, is terroristic in nature.
 * Kudos for a very objective description of the historical background.
 * From what I read, the article actually DOESN'T say much about the specific influence of the Pakistani Government--particularly under Gen. Ziaul Haq--in shaping the nature of the militancy and making it more overtly Fundamentalist in nature.
 * How can an article whose neutrality and accuracy is disputed become a featured article? That's actually a serious question. Can it?

More later; please feel free to drop me a line (User page or e-mail) to let me know what's going on. I am not following specific pages too well nowadays.

And thanks and kudos again for so consciously and aggressively working to get a complete, balanced picture together.

&mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) June 30, 2005 16:18 (UTC)

Kashmir
You're welcome. It's the least I could do. :)

The Bulldozer 30 June 2005 20:53 (UTC)

Jihad
Thanks for your comments. I think this dichotomy should be removed from the article somehow. The two different definitions of jihad are creating problems here. And again this is the very reason why people come here & delete the whole inner strugle section. What do U say Farhansher 1 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)

No, actually I wanted to somehow remove this division of Jihad into inner struggle & warfare, & make it a one piece philosophy , that has an alfa & omega , rather than having two totally different things under two different sections. Something that incorporates the existing text, but explains it in a mode that the five levels of Jihad are explained , rather than implying that there is an actual warfare Jihad , that is the real one , and there is a spiritual Jihad that is believed by few. This way, we wont get this problem again & again.

Also give a look hereIslam and slavery. See for grammetical or spelling mistakes. This page was filled by Urchid's continuous rants. And I think this page will be creating problems in the future.

Farhansher 1 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)

Query
I'd like to discuss something with you by e-mail if that's possible. If it is, could you contact me using the link on my user page? Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 19:49 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Check your email. Thanks. --Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 20:48 (UTC)

Warning.
You have a good head on your shoulders, but you're treading the 3rr line a bit to much. If you see a problem, leave me a message on my talk page, and I may revert on your behalf if I agree. OK?--Tznkai 3 July 2005 04:30 (UTC)

If I was an admin, I'd likley just give you a warning anyway. Just to note, while I know this wasn't your intention, marking POV reversions minor sometimes draws suspicion. Just trying to look out for you. Anyway, my knowledge of Muhammed is very thin, so I'm just applying an outside view to style edits, just so you know.--Tznkai 3 July 2005 04:50 (UTC)

Response to:Please don't use sockpuppets

 * "I have found out that you were trying to make a rebuttal towards bulldozer, but then used Grubb (aka you) to make the edit. I would like you to please consider stopping this nationalist violence on that article and refrain from using sockpuppets. Aside from that I hope to continue a productive dialogue with you and hope that you will retract the comment from the discussion as it is already on Bulldozer's talk page. On that article it serves no purpose but will cause more controversy. Thanks, Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 04:28 (UTC)"

LOL! User:Grubb is the username of my brother. He made that edit w/o signing himself in and it got signed by my name because he was using my laptop. :) IncMan July 3, 2005 04:36 (UTC)


 * Lol. Ok, I will trust you on this, but I am hoping that he will retract his comment as bulldozer probably already got the idea and that will just cause more controversy. I hope you are both productive editors. Thanks. --Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 04:44 (UTC)


 * I was shocked when I read that comment left by my bro. He never takes interest in Politics but that comment was just too much. Don't worry, I'll make sure he retracts from his statements. I've already warned him to keep himself out of controversies (User_talk:Grubb). Thanks and cheers IncMan July 3, 2005 05:02 (UTC)


 * My bro has retracted from his statements. Think that edit got signed again by my name. Thanks IncMan July 3, 2005 05:38 (UTC)