User talk:Grufo/Archive 1

Reminder on sources
Hello Grufo, thanks for your ongoing contributions. As a reminder, any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source, per WP:V. Regards, Rolf H Nelson (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi! I agree completely. What exactly are you referring to? --Grufo (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * . Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, I apologize. What happened in that article was that I restored a useful content and then I slowly started to add references to it. But searching for references takes its time. --Grufo (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Negative mass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newton's law ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Negative_mass check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Negative_mass?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You seem to be reverting whole-scale edits, including mine. Given that you're introducing extremist Islamophobic sources (see WP:QUESTIONABLE), I get the feeling you may not even be fully reading what you're reverting, or that you don't understand WP:RS. Please stop reverting.VR talk  20:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. VR talk  14:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Your addition to Islamic views on slavery has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, what part would I have copied? --Grufo (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * All of it was copied. The text "The Prophet ordered slave-owners to address their slaves by such euphemistic terms as 'my boy' and 'my girl' and "The Prophet ordered slave-owners to address their slaves by such euphemistic terms as 'my boy' and 'my girl' stemmed from the belief that God, not their masters, was responsible for the slave's status" appear in the Medium article here, which appears to be quoting some other source, likely the same source you actually cited. The remainder is a match for this book, page 170.— Diannaa (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because of your intervention I have no more access to the history of my edits for checking. I definitely used the BBC page as a source for a small paragraph (so definitely not “all of it”), but I referenced it, so I don't see the problem. Furthermore, besides that small paragraph I had given many more further contributions that surely have nothing to do with the alleged copyright infringement you talk about, but it seems you enjoyed removing them as well under the same umbrella motivation. But as I said I cannot access the history page and check for the extension of your intervention. --Grufo (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your contribution to the page was removed pretty much in its entirety, because it all appears to have been copied from the two sources I already mentioned. The revisions containing the copyright material were hidden from view under under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy, and that's why you can't access them any more.— Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Since I cannot check I will go by heart. All the interventions of mine that were taken from the BBC page had a footnote with the source and in most cases used double quotes. It is a typical case of fair use and perfectly normal within Wikipedia pages. --Grufo (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * None of that is true. I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so you can see for yourself.— Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I see. I think there is a misunderstanding. To understand my interventions you will have to, where you can see Vice regent's edits reviewed by me, plus some additions from me containing the BBC quotations. All the other books that according to you are plagiarized have not been added by me and were already present in the page. --Grufo (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Correction: I did remove a large quotation from the BBC article, it was done as a separate edit with the edit summary "remove quotation; no reason why original prose could not be prepared". Since after I did that I found additional copyright material that had to be removed, the removal of the quotation was caught up in the revision deletion. It would be best if it was done right at the end so it's not a hidden diff, but that's not what happened in this case unfortunately. What I would like you to do is, which shows the difference before you began your additions to the article and after my removal. None of the text I removed was already present (other than one iteration of the phrase "The Prophet ordered slave-owners to address their slaves by such euphemistic terms as 'my boy' and 'my girl'"). Meanwhile your comparison shows a large amount of text added by someone else, text which I did not remove and is still present in the article.— Diannaa (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My intervention was literally a review of Vice regent's edits, so if you compare my edits after Vice regent's edits (as the Diff page you linked shows) you will probably see some text added that apparently is from me. But if you go back before Vice regent you will see that that text eventually comes back. This is because my edits were a revision of Vice regent's interventions, and in the specific case I did not approve one or more removals by Vice regent. It is important to emphasize that the dispute between me and Vice regent (#1) has nothing to do with copyright, but only with content, so I believe neither of us checked whether previous material present in the page was protected by copyright. --Grufo (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that there was a copyright violation before I started editing, then I removed that copyright violation and you brought back that copyright violation? VR talk  15:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am saying exactly that (if it is true that a copyright violation was present in the page and of which you were in any case completely unaware). --Grufo (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And you see nothing wrong with that? Restoring copyright violation is as bad as introducing it in the first place.VR talk  15:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Since I've been mentioned in this discussion twice... Grufo is following me around wikipedia, undoing my edits and adding original research (Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents). This revision (now deleted) by Grufo both added original research and violated copyright from this BBC article. My revisions, which are not deleted and can still be seen, did not introduce any copyright material.VR talk  14:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This shows once again that you live in parallel discussions, Vice regent. As it is emerging from this discussion, my quotation from BBC was not what triggered the copyright violation discussed here. --Grufo (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * confirmed that your quotation from BBC was removed with the edit summary "remove quotation; no reason why original prose could not be prepared".VR talk  15:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand your desperate search of approval from others, but I would leave it to to say whether my BBC quotation constituted a copyright violation or not. --Grufo (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The edit that triggered the investigation was your very first edit to the page, at 02:40, August 5, 2020, which contained copyright material copied from the BBC article, not a quotation. The large quote ("a poignant paradox of Islamic slavery...") from the BBC article was added with your 05:10, August 5, 2020 edit. Grufo, please stop pinging me in each edit. I have watch-listed the page, and will visit when I can, and will make a comment if I have something to say. Please don't make disparaging remarks about other editors ("desperate search of approval").— Diannaa (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * “your very first edit to the page, at 02:40, August 5, 2020, which contained copyright material copied from the BBC article“
 * Again, we cannot reference the history since it has been obscured, but I know for sure that I had done my best to reformulate the prose in the parts that have not been surrounded by double quotes and I am sure that the prose was referenced with a footnote.
 * “Grufo, please stop pinging me in each edit. I have watch-listed the page”
 * I usually believe that adding a ping to the user every time the user is mentioned is an act of courtesy, since I cannot know whether the user has watch-listed the page – for example I never watch-list any page. I apologize in any case if that has bothered you.
 * “disparaging remarks about other editors”
 * As for that, I repeat what I just said: it must be you the one who talks about copyright, not a user who was completely unaware of it, who until not long ago was attacking me for not being literal enough in copying from the BBC, and at the moment cannot even access the history and judge what we are talking about.
 * So the question is: was my paragraph, by the time I had finished editing the page, legitimate or not from a copyright point of view? If not, what exactly constituted copyright violation? --Grufo (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The entire series of edits had to be removed because it was all copied from elsewhere - the BBC article, the book, and the Medium article. The exception was the paragraph-long quotation and some snippets in the first edit, both from the BBC article, which I removed as excess non-free content. I have again undone the revision deletion because you apparently did not get an adequate opportunity to review. Here is how the first edit compares with the BBC article. Some of it is in quotation marks, but some of it is not. Again, there's no reason for the quotations - the material could have been re-written in your own words.Once I removed the over-long quotation I looked at the remainder of your addition, and plugged snippets of the remaining additions into a Google search, which revealed the material from Medium and from the book. Sample Google search; highlighted copied material as seen in the book. I have to go out again in ten minutes as I have another appointment. — Diannaa (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I had asked about the paragraph that used the BBC as a source (I don't remember the title and I am not allowed to look), since the rest is not material that I have inserted (why do you repeat it? I have never seen that book before and it is not hard to see before the dispute between me and Vice regent). I would like that you pasted that BBC-based paragraph here, possibly including footnotes, since it is hard to make an argument without it. --Grufo (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The paragraph is visible now, thank you. There is only one sentence without double quotes that I have tried to reformulate with my own words (still making sure that a footnote referencing to the original article was present in the end).
 * The original BBC sentence is:
 * “Islamic law allows slaves to get their freedom under certain circumstances. It divides slaves with the right to freedom into various classes:”
 * While my version is:
 * “While in other systems of slavery, such as for example that of Ancient Rome, a slave could always buy their freedom by financial means, Islamic law allows slaves to get their freedom only under certain circumstances. Slaves are divided with the right to freedom into various classes: ”
 * So this was the paragraph that allegedly violates copyright, while this is the BBC page the paragraph is based on.
 * {| class="toccolours" style="min-width: 80%;"

!(paragraph that possibly violates copyright)

Slave rights to freedom
While in other systems of slavery, such as for example that of Ancient Rome, a slave could always buy their freedom by financial means, Islamic law allows slaves to get their freedom only under certain circumstances. Slaves are divided with the right to freedom into various classes:


 * The mukatab is "a slave who has the contractual right to buy their freedom over time"
 * The mudabbar is "a slave who will be freed when their owner dies (this might not happen if the owner's estate was too small)"
 * The umm walid is "a female slave who had borne her owner a child"


 * }
 * I would say that although contentwise the paragraph can definitely be improved and I am sure it is not the best Wikipedia edit I ever did, it is a fair use of copyrighted material. --Grufo (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves.— Diannaa (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are five sentence in total in that paragraph. Two I have reformulated with my own words, three instead are left as literal quotations. And given the sensitivity of the topic, even if I could reformulate these three sentences with my own words, I would never take the responsibility of re-defining myself what mukatab, mudabbar and umm walid are. --Grufo (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of reliable sources that define those three terms, and I can think of plenty of ways of using original prose to convey the same content.VR talk  22:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of reliable sources that define those three terms, and I can think of plenty of ways of using original prose to convey the same content.VR talk  22:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Your addition should not contain any number of sentences that are copied from elsewhere, other than short quotations, and those are only permitted when there is no alternative. You had better leave out the part about the Roman Empire; it's not covered by the cited source, and I'm pretty sure it's not true that they were always allowed to buy their freedom. How about this:

I've pasted this version in User:Diannaa/sandbox2 and you can see via Earwig's tool that the overlap is very small. View the overlap— Diannaa (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Diannaa. As I said, it is not that I could not find the words to reformulate these sentences, it is that I did not feel like taking the responsibility of doing it. I agree about better not mentioning Ancient Rome, it was a way to formulate the sentence in a more original way and mark a bigger distance from the original source. I think we can close this topic now. If you are OK with it in the next days I will use your version for the Wikipedia article. --Grufo (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

VR, you make a good point about research. The article Mukataba says there are 4 ways a slave can be manumuted, not three. So there's more research to be done.— Diannaa (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It turns out there are many ways of manumission and I re-organized this here. Before my edit, I found a lot of quotation and close paraphrasing.VR talk  00:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

BLP
Grufo, you need to realize that BLPs are governed by strict rules. Any poorly sourced content at BLPs must be removed immediately. WP:BLPCAT says VR talk 17:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. VR talk 13:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Your recent editing history at Rape in Islamic law shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Rape in Islamic law
Hello Grufo. You've been warned for edit warring as a result of a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You may be blocked if you continue to remove the original research template when protection expires, unless you have received a prior consensus in your favor on the article talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Your talk page edit makes it difficult for us to have a discussion
This edit of yours on a talk page is unhelpful. I started a discussion on the talk page about your revert at 18:05 August 12 and then you started a discussion on the exact same revert at 18:20, August 12, 2020. I assumed that you hadn't see my discussion before adding a new section, so I simply merged the two sections. This is something simple and procedural that's done on talk pages. Yet for some reason you separated the sections which discuss the exact same topic. You even added comments in both sections. Why would you insist on having the same conversation in two different sections? VR talk 21:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I saw the history only later and I thought you had changed the title of my paragraph. I have seen now that you had inserted a paragraph few minutes before I inserted mine. It does not really matter that in good faith we created two similar paragraph in a talk page. But I believe that at this point merging them would create confusion. --Grufo (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You are doing it again. On 23:56, August 12, 2020 you replied in the section "Quote". So I responded to you in the section "Quote" on 17:36, August 13, 2020. But you posted a response to that in a different section called "Removal of direct quotation" on 19:22, August 13, 2020. On 22:47, August 13, 2020 you post a message in the section "Quote" saying you had responded to me in the section "Removal of direct quotation". Why are you jumping around between two sections. Can you pick one section to have this discussion? VR talk 03:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you talking about now, . You asked me about the unbalance of your removal first under Talk:Nick_Berg (19:22, 12 August 2020), then the day after (17:36, 13 August 2020), without even replying to my answer you asked the same question again under Talk:Nick_Berg. --Grufo (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My 17:36, 13 August 2020 is clear response to your comment in the "Quote" section at 23:56, August 12, 2020. Yet you responded to my 17:36, 13 August 2020 in a different section. For the purposes of avoiding confusion, I would like to merge the sections again, and respond at the end of the section, please don't revert that.VR talk 12:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Civility matters
Your recent edits to Reliable sources/Noticeboard & shows you have strong feelings regarding the subject of the discussion and that you need to avoid further violation of Civility. I suggest you avoid making comments that are not related to making content changes. Best. -- M h hossein   talk 15:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What made you perceive that good comments such as and  have anything against Civility? --Grufo (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Civility requires focusing on "focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Further it says describes incivility as "personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments". Your comments  is never an improvement to the discussion and instead violates civility. --  M h hossein   talk 12:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am fairly convinced that both comments have been good manifestations of Civility, both 1) defending two atheist bloggers who due to their opposition to the dictator Khomeini had been accused of being biased, using for it the argument that "being ideologically opposed to Khomeini is quite a symptom of good mental health", and 2) stating that the sentence according to which Khomeini was just like other clerics of his time "...sounds like “Other stuff exists applied to a dictator”". On the contrary your allegations seem to go straight against it. --Grufo (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I already explained how your comments are never improvement to the article and/or the talk page discussions. So you need to avoid them. Repeating incivility is sanctionable, AFAIK. -- M h hossein   talk 11:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Defending two atheist bloggers" is not what you should do here, as an editor. You need to pay attention to the our policies and guidelines (see your welcome message). -- M h hossein   talk 12:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As editors we defend what we believe in good faith should be defended. And suggesting that the opposition to a bloody dictator is a sign of good mental health is exactly what I think civility is. --Grufo (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein - Forgive me if I'm missing something, but I don't see how the two comments Grufo made here and here are uncivil? It's fine for him to disagree and see something differently than others. Disagreeing on something or even having a viewpoint on a subject matter that isn't popular doesn't constitute incivility. I don't see any personal attacks, harassment, intimidation, threats, or rude or snide comments made directly toward another editor...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, then can you explain how the comments explained here are improvement to the discussion. I mean how "Being ideologically opposed to Khomeini is quite a symptom of good mental health" and "...sounds like “Wikipedia:Other stuff exists applied to a dictator” ", which are really irrelevant to the context being discussed, can be viewed as having anything to do with the content improvement? -- M h hossein   talk 13:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think describing the subject as "a bloody dictator", when it's not necessary, can be in accordance with our guidelines. Do you? -- M h hossein   talk 13:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein - I must've misread those comments or interpreted them differently. I honestly was confused with Grufo's comments, "being ideologically opposed to Khomeini is quite a symptom of good mental health", and "sounds like Wikipedia:Other stuff exists applied to a dictator". I thought that maybe he was referring to himself by saying that being "ideologically opposed to Khomeini" was good mental health? I just wasn't sure what to make of that. And I didn't know what his comment about WP:OSE "applied to a dictator" was even talking about - it made no sense to me at all. Maybe I need to read through the entire discussion for more context...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC) I've read both of those comments, with context, and I see no issues regarding civility with them.  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   15:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your intervention, . Since we are talking about me I feel I should better explain the context within that discussion. I was showing what Dan Fincke and Kaveh Mousavi, two atheist bloggers, had said about Khomeini's controversial statement ( and ); an editor answered to that that the two bloggers were ideologically opposed to Khomeini; and my reply was “Being ideologically opposed to Khomeini is quite a symptom of good mental health”. As for the second comment, we were talking about the fact that someone had stated that Khomeini wasn't so extreme after all, and other clerics of his time were just as crazy; and my answer to that was that such an argument sounded like “other stuff exist” applied to a dictator. --Grufo (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see a civility problem at all with those comments, Grufo. You were simply expressing your opinion regarding a blogger and what he published, and were participating in a discussion over whether or not to use a given source, or to locate a different reference instead (you could do both, you know...). I'm still not sure exactly why Mhhossein believes them to be a violation of Wikipedia's civility policy. I think he's getting hung up on the summary paragraph of the policy that states that comments should "focus on improving the encyclopedia", and interpreting it as a policy written in stone rather than in spirit.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   15:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I still do not understand what your problem is with me, . We barely had any interaction at all. Do you by chance endorse the dictator? In that case of course it would offend you if I called the dictator you endorse “bloody dictator”, as I did . But then the question would rather be: would your position be acceptable for Wikipedia, let alone for opening a case against other editors? --Grufo (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Would you please help with this discussion/instruction as an admin? The user is not willing to accept the users are not here to defend/oppose a POV/person or lack thereof. I tried to tell him the talk page discussions should include comments aimed at improving the article and/or the talk page discussions. -- M h hossein   talk 12:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * since you're here, here are two personal attacks made on me by Grufo: 1, 2. Grufo accuses me of trying to "silence points of view that do not conform to your personal opinion", of "insisting on POV-pushing at all costs", of having "a wish to hide" content, of sockpuppetry. They accuse others in content disputes of vandalism. They revert me under the edit summary of "limiting the damage done [by Vice Regent]".VR talk 18:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is my talk page. Have you had a look at it? Is literally filled with your interventions or complains against me. You have reported me in all possible places (#1, #2), you keep projecting what you do on me, you have reached the point of repeating the same complains to different admins (have you ever heard about the principle “Non bis in idem”?), you have editors of completely unrelated discussions, and you have even misleadingly tried to present to  your own warnings  as “this article has attracted edit warring before”. Do you feel that any of this is normal? --Grufo (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Grufo repeatedly accuses me of psychological projection. VR talk 21:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Grufo, Vice regent - I think you both just need to work out the disputes at-hand, work with one another as a team of editors, and mutually agree to put your issues with each other aside and work together with a "clean slate". I don't believe that the diffs listed here show that Grufo was being uncivil in a malicious manner and with bad-faith intent. Sure, many of those comments could've been avoided or worded differently - I'm not saying that there's absolutely nothing wrong with them. Grufo, the best thing to take away from this is that other editors will interpret the things you say, even in subtle passing, differently and with more intensity than how you meant to present them. It's important avoid commenting on other editors and what you think their intentions are, as much as possible. If that can't be avoided, make sure that you word your statements with the other editor's thoughts in mind, avoid making accusations, and that you keep those comments only on appropriate channels (such as ANI), and that support your statements on other editors with diffs.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your precious insights,, on which I agree completely. --Grufo (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Insight please. -- M h hossein   talk 14:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cairo2k18 (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice, Cairo2k18! --Grufo (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Following me again
I notice you have restarted WP:STALK-ing me. Please stop. We've been over this before (Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044). If anyone looks at your contribution history it consists mostly of following me around to different articles on Wikipedia and getting into disputes with me.VR talk 21:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you believe that my any of my edits were not aimed at improving Wikipedia constructively or against destructive edits (removals or POV-pushing, from you or anyone else), but I rather wanted to cause “irritation, annoyance, or distress” to you in particular, please do come forward. I am rather keeping a low profile, I want to stick to the content and I am really not interested in anything else, but I actually could report you for some of your past behaviors, especially WP:CANVASS (like an editor apparently pro-Khomeini in a dispute about Khomeini's statements, who ended up accusing me in my Talk Page of not being gentle enough towards Khomeini, or  editors from the Planck units discussion in a completely unrelated context, etc.). But since – differently than you – I do not want to cause any distress to anyone, I prefer to stick to the content only, meeting you in a page or not as I feel I am interested in the moment, with the only goal of improving Wikipedia. --Grufo (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think I have broken policies, report me. You made about 520 edits in August, and of those only about 40 were unrelated to me. >90% of your edits have been spent in conflict with me (all of which started as a result of you following me around). 90%!!
 * I'm asking you politely, please stop following me around. Thanks.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 00:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * “If you think I have broken policies, report me”
 * I never reported anyone and I am not a policeman, so I won't report you unless your misbehavior blocks the normal activity of other editors on Wikipedia or I feel that your POV-pushing overcomes what other editors are able to track. You did come quite close in some occasions.
 * “520 edits in August”
 * That is not a bad thing, and you have started a dispute in Islam and blasphemy after which you have reported me twice (#1, #2), so you basically have invited me to intervene more than my low profile would require.
 * “90% of your edits have been spent in conflict with me (all of which started as a result of you following me around). 90%!!”
 * Probably they would have been 100% if you hadn't WP:CANVASSED involving some editors from the Planck units page. You did make me rediscover more than one interest indeed.
 * “I'm asking you politely, please stop following me around”
 * WP:HOUNDING states:
 * "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in mediation, incidents, and arbitration cases. Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or meritless complaints about another editor."


 * Your account is basically a WP:SPA account, your activity is nearly that of a pure WP:SEALION, and yet I have limited myself to be constructive and fix only the most unacceptable interventions. Unless you believe that I have acted “to cause you distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight” – which I believe I didn't and for which a formal accusation must be started (again) – there is nothing wrong in having a look at what you do, considering also that as WP:SPA you tend edit closely-related pages. We do tend to have different opinions, so that alone does cause some distress – to both of us, not only you. But that's life I guess.
 * --Grufo (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) Grufo, you're really sore over the plank issue huh? I agree that it was rather unnecessary but I think your rage comes from the fact that your claims of having "won" the dispute and significantly improved the article were exposed. Maybe be a bit careful about making such claims in the future. It restarted the dead dispute again so we can consider this a win for wikipedia no?


 * 2) VR only contacted the third editor after seeking permission from an admin and after you yourself requested a native Farsi speaker to look into the issue.


 * 3) In the case of the Quran, your edits over at Islam and blasphemy were extremely problematic to say the least. You've gotten a warning and a huge lecture from Guy Macron now, but reporting you at the time (when you were refusing to listen) was the right thing to do.


 * I'd honestly prefer not get involved in the dispute between you two, but I kind of feel responsible since I was the one who caught your atrocious edits over at Islam and blasphemy and created a ruckus. Before this you barely even edited on this topic. At the time I invited the congenial Eperoton instead of VR but it's not as if you listen to him either.


 * P.S Having a focus area is not what an SPA is and you continue to make uncalled for charges about POV pushing which can just as easily be made about you as well. Islam isn't exactly a niche topic. As you yourself note you're the one acting as an SPA now (90-100%), and one that is following him, not just making edits on Islam related pages. You are most certainly not an auto-patroller either and your attempt to be one really falls flat. 39.37.150.110 (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * “I agree that it was rather unnecessary”
 * I was not so sad to remove a tiny pebble from my shoe, but for Vice regent's credibility was definitely counterproductive.
 * “I think your rage comes from …”
 * What rage?
 * “VR only contacted the third editor after seeking permission from an admin”
 * Interesting, you seem very well informed about Vice regent's activity too. But let's see what happened… Vice regent admin  whether he may contact an Iranian about a controversial Farsi translation concerning Khomeini. Girth Summit  that Vice regent can, as long as the involvement is due only to their language skills (“I think it would be OK, provided you're asking them because of their language skills rather than because you think they are likely to agree with your position”). The day after, the Iranian (with whom I barely had any interaction) is already polarized against me and  for the intervention of another admin because of my critical opinions about Khomeini (sic). So, excuse me if after the unambiguous WP:CANVASS violation concerning the involvement of the Planck units' editors I wonder whether the involvement of that particular Iranian editor was also opportune.
 * “your edits over at Islam and blasphemy were extremely problematic to say the least”
 * This is interesting too, since I believe exactly the same about your edits – especially your insisting in POV-pushing into the page the infamous sentence “The Quran admonishes blasphemy, but does not specify any worldly punishment for blasphemy” (WP:POVSOURCE).
 * “I'd honestly prefer not get involved in the dispute between you two”
 * And yet apparently you can never resist the temptation.
 * --Grufo (talk) 06:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "Interesting, you seem very well informed about Vice regent's activity too."
 * Your point? I've noted your less than civil arguments over at the plank dispute too though none of us have any input there. You accuse others of canvassing but do you really think there is a quantum-pro Islamic nexus here or does the problem lie somewhere else?


 * "“The Quran admonishes blasphemy, but does not specify any worldly punishment for blasphemy” "
 * Oh wow! You never really admit a fault do you. Whether it's Guy Macon, Rosguill, Eperoton, GMG, or VR . If they haven't gotten to you by now, I doub't I'll get to you either. Can you not see that my claim was directly linked from two sources, first a newspaper report (admittedly a better source would be preferred) and then a stronger source that you yourself had personally deleted multiple times (even the sentence was from before.. The "POV" in question was endorsed by multiple reliable sources while all you could muster up was direct primary sources or utterly unreliable sources like Raymond Ibrahim. We can go over in circles all we want but it's your own behavior that is more suspect. How do you know VR's credibility is being harmed? Says who? The projection may indeed be real...39.37.150.110 (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * “Having a focus area is not what an SPA is”
 * Having a focus area is exactly what WP:SPA is: “A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose”. Vice regent's activity meets both points: 1. a single area of interest and 2. most edits appear to be for a common purpose (POV-pushing of minority interpretations of Islam or removal of the opposite positions)
 * “I've noted your less than civil arguments over at the plank dispute too though none of us have any input there”
 * Which ones? Facts please.
 * “do you really think there is a quantum-pro Islamic nexus here or does the problem lie somewhere else?”
 * Nothing so complicate. I simply think that as WP:SPA there is an agenda behind Vice regent's edits, and you normally with him in this agenda. Since the purpose of a WP:SPA is an agenda and not their care about Wikipedia there is potentially nothing to stop their destructive approach towards the encyclopedia as long as it is functional to the main goal. There are no conspiracies here, only the fact that as long as it benefits there is no hesitation in WP:CANVASSING on the basis of personal resentments or political/religious common POV. Being WP:SPA is not illegal – although I never trust WP:SPA accounts – only violating the policy is.
 * “You never really admit a fault do you”
 * What fault?
 * “Whether it's Guy Macon, Rosguill, Eperoton, GMG, or VR ”
 * There is no fault in having a different opinion than other editors, it happens constantly to you and Vice regent too. But since I happened to be minority in the discussion you mentioned, . That does not mean that I have to change my opinion about the fact that the contested passage was an indirect quotation and not an interpretation and in any case it was well within the discretion allowed by WP:RSPSCRIPTURE: the only thing that matters is my acknowledgment of other editors' different opinion, which is what I often see missing in both you and Vice regent (more in Vice regent than you to be honest).
 * --Grufo (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "I have to change my opinion about the fact that the contested passage was an indirect quotation and not an interpretation and in any case it was well within the discretion allowed by WP:RSPSCRIPTURE"
 * That's the problem. Since you believe you did nothing wrong, chances are that you'll do it again which is why we'll only run in circles. I've made around a dozen comments on this issue (on the talkpages) followed by other editors making statements like your views "do(n't) hold water", "Wrong... Please stop saying things that are not true. Did you think nobody would check?", etc


 * The experienced editors have in fact been harsher than me or VR. This isn't an issue of a simple difference of opinion. It's an issue of continuous misuse of Wikipedia policies for the purpose of wikilawyering, POV pushing (with primary or unreliable sources unlike VR's mostly reliable sources) and now hounding.


 * The diff you posted is from Eproton's page where all three VR, I and Mcphurphy (an opposing editor) have requested his assistance at various times. That's not collaborating but if you have any accusations to make please take them to the incident noticeboard. Are Eperoton and VR collaborating too? Their discussions are more extensive.


 * Finally, if you want clarification, I've only been jaguaring VR for a few months whereas he's been active for over a decade. In total, I've made very few edits outside the talkpages. I first came into contact with him on the Sexual slavery article, where I first initiated the dispute and he joined much later. Infact it was user Mcphurphy who was warned by an admin for canvassing and being a single purpose account . There are so many socks on the talkpage that I stayed in contact with verified editors like VR and Eperoton. After the Sexual slavery dispute is over I plan to roll back my engagement with them, if necessary. 39.37.150.110 (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * “Since you believe you did nothing wrong, chances are that you'll do it again”
 * Do again what? Have an opinion, be minority and immediately acknowledge the majority? If this is what you call “wrong” I wish Wikipedia was full of people as “wrong”. You can keep blaming me for having opinions, but that won't transform it into a fault.
 * “The experienced editors have in fact been harsher than me or VR”
 * Who exactly? Please, be harsher.
 * “Finally, if you want clarification”
 * It is not really needed. Although your interventions are those of a WP:SPA as well, you don't need to justify them: it is allowed to be WP:SPA. You have not done anything wrong with (I guess), you have only shown that you do have an agenda (“Editor Grufo certainly isn't making this easy. His mass alterations should have been detected earlier.”).
 * --Grufo (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring
You seem to be edit-warring at Concubinage. You've been warned before to not edit-war. If you continue, I will report you.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 21:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you please have more respect for my Talk Page? You are POV-pushing at Concubinage, but I'd rather prefer to keep your Talk Page clean. --Grufo (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 04:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Concubinage. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Italian grammar
Thanks for trying to help with the "gliene-" issue on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_grammar. As you may have seen, I put in a similar clarification request twice: one within a table on personal pronouns in the Pronouns section, and one after an example sentence where "gliene-" is used and, what is more, translated as "them", in the Clitic pronouns section.

My main issue is with the fact that the same Wikipedia article / page holds these two mutually (more or less) contradictory and / or non-consistent statements (or absence thereof, when considering the table). In my opinion, there would be no or less cause for confusion, and more clarity, if:


 * either the table would also show "glie-" for the plural 3rd person masculine and feminine as an acceptable alternative to "lore",
 * or "them" would be removed from the sentence translation, or at least be marked as non-standard or non-classical or similar.

Or maybe another way can be found to resolve the confusion.

I personally do not consider myself qualified to make the choice, since my Italian is no more than basic. If you happen to be knowledgeable on this particular matter in the Italian language, please let us know.Redav (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * “"gliene-" is used and, what is more, translated as "them", in the Clitic pronouns section”: You are right. ! Thank you. --Grufo (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)