User talk:Asad112/Archives/2011/August

who are you?
any other accounts? is Asad112 a sleeper account? or? please answer these questions, Hope&amp;Act3! (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no! My secret is out! You have outed the sleeper account! Do you get a badge/barnstar on your page for doing that? -asad (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

1rr
Hey, you are only allowed 1 rv per 24 hours within all Arab-Israeli conflict articles, so you should self revert your second revert at Rachels Tomb as it was your second rv within 24 hours. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought that didn't apply to reverts from anonymous or ip users? Can you clear that up for me? -asad (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes you are right, my mistake, you didn't violate it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification of edits
You shouldn't notify me of other peoples edits as it may be regarded as inappropriate canvassing. I have Dome of the Rock on my watchlist so I would see it anyways. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, it may be regarded as inappropriate canvassing, you can read about it here: Canvassing. Those who are interested would be watching the article so you only have to make posts at the article talkpage about it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Old City (Jerusalem)
You should be aware that all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related. For further information, see WP:ARBPIA.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Clear vandalism may be reverted without penalty.
 * Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
 * Thanks, I am aware. As you can see, nearly the exact same message was posted above yours. Have I been in violation of this rule to warrant being notified twice? -asad (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Warning regarding disruption
This is a warning regarding disruption as evidenced in report at Administrators' noticeboard - Edit warring. Yes, there may be a WP:SPI issue involved, but please in the future refrain from repeated reverts and disruption as you have done multiple times. There are other ways to seek out conflict resolution and dispute resolution instead. If there are sock concerns, there is WP:SPI and WP:SOCK. If there are dispute resolution concerns, there are avenues described at WP:Dispute resolution. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, what would you suggest to do at this point if the problem persists? So far I have done this and this. This resulted in nothing. And this doesn't look promising. Everything I and other users have done until this point has failed, and the user continues to make reverts without participating in the discussion.


 * I guess I just want you to help me out in finding the other ways as you said. Thanks. -asad (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest WP:BRD, avoiding disruptive behaviors yourself, and instead engage in talk page discussion, WP:Dispute resolution procedures, etc - especially due to the 1RR issues involved. -- Cirt (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Disruption

 * You are not allowed to comment on the contributor instead of the content as you did at the Western Wall discussion. That can lead to blocks if repeated too often.
 * There is not consensus for the map you chose (if anything it is slightly against you but that could be my POV) It is edit warring anyways since the next step was not to revert but seek another step i dispute resolution.
 * You removed a video with false reasoning in your edit summary a little while ago
 * I believe you might be a sock of Sol Goldstone based on similar humor and a lapse in editing until he was blocked.

I am debating how to handle this situation but will deal with it tomorrow. The comments above show that you are familiar with the arbitration decision so you have no excuse. I don't really care if you respond but wanted to let you know what was up. Cptnono (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, I absolutely encourage/implore you to proceed was a SP investigation on me as the result of such investigation will only show how your accusations and intent are entirely unfounded. Second, I removed a video almost two months ago, why are you bringing it up now? And in my edit summary, I said exactly why I removed it, it states the location as "Jerusalem, Israel", which is not correct. Thirdly, perhaps that was the wrong point I pointed out on the talk page, but if you feel that is worth reporting, I would gladly accept any sort of sanction against me, as I am satisfied that I have shown how hypocritical your editing practices are, that you out me, as I don't have the same political agenda as you, and you did not out the other editor who clearly reverted to something that was against consensus.

Thanks for stopping by. -asad (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Best of luck to you
You are dealing with one of the most vehemently fought over issues in the world. You are up against arguably one of the most effective propaganda machines in the "western" world. Don't expect an easy ride. Expect: intimidation, Wikilawering, hypocrisy and cant. Prunesqualer (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Who is buried at Jospeh's tomb?
The cover over the tomb reads in 1917: "This is God's prophet, our master Joseph, peace be upon him". Is that wording apt for a local 19th-century Muslim cleric? Chesdovi (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know who is actually inside the tomb, and that is frankly irrelevant to me. But the word "Nowadays" is completely misrepresenting the source that is attached to the sentence. A photo showing something draped over the tomb at some point in time is nowhere near conclusive enough proof to assert your point that that is a recent belief that it is a local Muslim cleric's corpse is enclosed in that tomb. The sources back up what the version was before your edit, do you have a source that backs up your claim that it is a recent belief? I (on a personal note, living about 15 minutes away from the tomb) have never met a Muslim believes that it is the burial place of one of the most important prophets in Islam. A barely legible Arabic inscription on that photo is not enough to back up your claim I'm afraid. -asad (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So find a better source than the BBC to dispell physical evidence contrary to your assumptions. Funny how Ali ibn abi bakr al-Harawi prostrated himself at the tomb, long before shiek Dawiqat's time. If this sheikh is so notable, lets have a page on him. Chesdovi (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you are not fond of the BBC. Do you have a source saying showing that it is only a recent position that Muslims have taken regarding the burial location of one of their prophets? By the way, I tried to do some basic research on the person you mentioned, I didn't see anything about him prostrating towards the tomb. And anyways, are you aware that it is forbidden for any Muslim to prostrate in prayer to any other location than the Kaaba? I make prostration towards burial sites of my family members, but I do not do that in prayer. There is a huge difference. -asad (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, do you consider the New York Times a "better" source? -asad (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "recent". We have doumented Muslim traditions at the site spanning many centuries and we then have the BBc telling us that 200 years ago a shiekh was buried there instead. So that is relativly "recent". Nowadays is a better choice of words, as that would put into perspective the 200 year old claim. Let the BBC and it's reliable source of this infomation see the 1917 photographi evidene and see what they say! They will end up blushing. Chesdovi (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I like to keep you occupied
occupy/ˈɒkjupʌɪ/﻿▶verb (occupies, occupying, occupied): To enter and stay in (a building) without authority, especially as a form of protest. Chesdovi (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the picture? They are not in the building. Try again. -asad (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can add this one: ? Chesdovi (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't have a problem with adding a photo showing protesters occupying a Ahava store and labeling the caption as such, but that picture you just linked is quite frankly horrible for an encyclopedia. -asad (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:Formatting
Marhaba Asad, the bracket at the end of the template was missing the preceding "|" mark as in "|}". --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No prob ;) --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Close of AE concerning Supreme Deliciousness
Hi, asad. I noticed your comments objecting to the close, and thought you might like to be made aware of comments I made on the topic, as well. If you need to post comments to that page before Ed responds, I'd be grateful if you'd ... well, wait until he responds. But if you can't wait, I'd appreciate it if you'd open a new thread for the purpose. I think we do need a centralized location to discuss the matter, and I've asked Ed to suggest the correct place for that, but I don't think we should appropriate his talk page for the purpose unless he specifically invites that, since it could become a long and potentially contentious discussion. I'd prefer that we keep any substantive discussion in one central location, wherever that turns out to be, but I've also temporarily watchlisted this page, if you'd like to briefly reply here. Best regards, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, AGK has acted within his rights as admin in the decision he chose to take against SD. That being said, there are some very glaring problems with the reason which SD was topic banned, mostly because we don't even know the reasons he was banned. Most of my comments would be in respect to an appeal that I assume SD will be making shortly.


 * As for the integrity of AGK's impartiality, I do see some problems. There is a diff of a comment he made in regards to Nableezy's topic ban. I am still trying see where the best place to bring that up would be -- be it EdJohnson's talk page or elsewhere. Let me know where you think would be the best place. Thanks for your note. -asad (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

arabic translation
can you translate (or at least type it up?)ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

and also the arabic in the middle of this image-



ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:Anabta
Salam Asad. I've been and will continue to be on wikibreak so I want to apologize for not getting to you sooner. Thank you very much for improving the article! The changes look good, but I should tell you to avoid using Palestine Remembered as a source since it has been deemed unreliable a number of times at the Reliable sources noticeboard. A lot of the info it provides seems solid to me, especially the statistics, but we still should avoid using it. Since it's not being used as a reference for Anabta's experience with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, nor for any exceptional or controversial claims or facts, I don't see it as posing a problem right now. Also, the article is just being improved, it's not being nominated for GA or anything of that sort. There are some other structural things which I'll take care of before I go back on break. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see my note at User talk:Chesdovi. Zerotalk 00:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

AE
User:asad112. Chesdovi (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Silwan
I explained my reasoning there. Aslbsl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslbsl (talk • contribs) 09:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

IP blocked
Hi. The IP I blocked was User:Mbz1, who is blocked and has had her Talk page access revoked. She was using an IP to evade her block. I don't believe she was causing any problems, except at her Talk page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)