User talk:His excellency/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! From: Netscott 18:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Returns
The "rebel warrior" returns... I was thinking that this account belonged to someone else. hehe. Netscott 19:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Amibidhrohi, I'm a little curious...why did you change your username?Timothy Usher 22:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * On council from my lawyer, I must refrain from answering that question. His Excellency... 22:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool name. BhaiSaab talk 23:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Dont's and do's

 * Don't blank material without a good reason.


 * Do use edit summaries.Timothy Usher 15:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't pretend to be oblivious of the reasons, you've been vandalizing that page despite protests for days now. Read WP:Consensus.I have repeated the reasons to you over and over again. You are adding rules to the Wikiprojects that are not founded on WP policy. It IS WP policy to have consensus before editing pages, and you've not done a thing to achieve consensus supporting your changes. It is offensive to tell Muslims to refrain from saying Salaam. It is offensive for you to demand they 'secularize' their userpages. Then again, I do honestly believe you meant to create that offense. You have an incredibly selective memory of WP rules, and your interpretation of them changes depending on what (or whom) you're talking about. His Excellency... 15:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop
Under your previous username, you were repeatedly blocked for an ongoing pattern of harassment and incivility toward your fellow editors. I suggest you stop.Timothy Usher 23:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm being perfectly civil. I am critical of your pattern of editing, particularly when warned regarding WP rules you are violating (WP:Consensus, WP:Civil, WP:RS), and I feel WP rules give me the right to make my criticisms so long as they are within limits. Nevermind that; according to BhaiSaab, you're wikistalking me. According to this, you've gone so far as to look my ID up on google: Please stop stalking me. As a general rule, I'd prefer to not have stalkers, and would rather have female ones if not having them isn't an option. Have a nice day. His Excellency... 00:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Good edit
This was a very good edit. Thanks.Timothy Usher 23:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Not cool
H.E., although a number of your points in your latest post on WP:ISLAM are pertinent the sum total strikes me more as a personal attack but mostly due to the fact that you posted in an entirely inappropriate place. In the future please utilize a mediator or file an RfC to address such issues or else try to use your talk page or the talk page with the person whom you have such concerns. Thanks. Netscott 17:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Given his repetitive editing of the project page, I felt it relevant to point out his actual views to other participants there. I've reminded him of WP:consensus, and he's well aware that his changed are offensive to Muslims who come across it. His objectives are no different than User:FairNBalanced, it's just that he's a bit more clever and subtle. Given there are more people who agree with his POV on Islam than who oppose it, I doubt an RFC would achieve anything either. Funny thing is, he's made me the topic of so many user talk pages and article talk pages, and yet there has been no objection to that. His Excellency... 17:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well from what I've seen of talk relative to your previous user name you do have a bit of a blemished history there. As you know I too have my own doubts about Timothy Usher of late (particularly in terms of his defense of User:FairNBalanced and his hateful displays) but he has been a good contributor in general to the project and in discussing the appearance of his good faith or lack thereof one must also make mention of this. I can understand if you might have difficulty in seeing his good contributions in light of the latest developments but I assure you they are there. Netscott 18:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
Fot this calculated personal attack I have blocked you indefinitely. I don't intend the block to be for ever, but you can get in touch with me or another admin to unblock you when you are prepared to abide by the rules. Tom Harrison Talk 18:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You have a history with the user being discussed here. You have a history pushing a particular POV on Islam-related articles. I suggest you have another admin look at this matter, as you're not a credible participant here. I suggest you look at all the talk pages in which he's made me the subject of discussion and apply the same rules to him as you do to me. I suggest you look at my repeated reminder to Timothy Usher that he respect WP:consensus, and that you take into account that he's ignored those rules repeatedly. His Excellency... 18:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * H.E., I'm sorry but Tom Harrison is right, it is unacceptable to call fellow editors "bigot" . Netscott 18:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And his allegation that I took part in "religion-motivated meat-puppetry" was acceptable? I'm fed up with the double standards here! On your talk page, he called me an anti-semite. There was no protesting that. No blocks. Given the harsh remark that was in response to,I suppose the charge was deserved. The charge I made against him (ie. that he is a bigot) is a factual one considering his record of edits, his selective memory of WP rules when the rules suit him, his targeting of Muslim editors. Your talk page documents this,AND documents your awareness and I suggest you keep it as record. Why is it for me to file an RFC? Why haven't you done this? Tom Harrison's talk page is little more than a register for the accused bigot to post his never-ending complaints and charges, as are the talk pages of several other admins. Frankly, I'd consider this block a relief. In fact, please make it permanent. No kidding. I feel obligated to come here and deal with this whole game of making Wikipedia's articles on Islam nothing more than indictments.I'm tired of being one of about three editors who speaks up against the hoards of Americans (who were too cowardly to actually sign up to fight the war) who've come here and devoted themselves to indicting Islam on every page they can, and demonizing every Muslim. His Excellency... 18:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You know flipping from one user name to another isn't helping out either. If you are serious about helping out on Wikipedia in terms of reducing anti-Muslim POV then get yourself one solid account to do that with and stick with that account. Also, stick within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia as you contribute. With your very questionable previous statements you make it very easy for others to discount you and your contributions. You also set yourself up for character assasination when you make statements that can be construed as anti-Semetic particularly when often times you are less then civil in your discourse. I agree that it is inappropriate for User:Timothy Usher to refer to you as an "anti-Semite" just as I agreed that it was inappropriate for User:Irishpunktom to refer to User:Karl Meier as a "racist" but unfortunately I've been fighting my own battle with Timothy Usher in similar regard. Netscott 19:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually my changing user accounts had more to do with my finding out that Timothy Usher had actually googled my ID. What he planned to do with information he'd obtain, who knows. Since that previous account shared the same name I use on other non-wikipedia related programs, I figured it'd be best to change IDs. Apparently you intend on making a habit of assuming bad faith. Yes, the best you and your kind can do is admit that the things Timothy Usher does are 'inappropriate', but only the Muslims who respond to him get a block.His Excellency... 04:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've posted to WP:ANI inviting review. Anyone who wants to can review your record and act as they think appropriate. Tom Harrison Talk 18:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd hope that they review your edit history and your relationship with Timothy Usher as well, and deal with the issue at hand. But that's too much to ask. His Excellency... 18:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, a number of your points are valid... but your lack of civility is not helping matters. Honestly I think the community is becoming rather aware of Timothy Usher's POV particularly relative to his view and defending of FairNBalanced hateful displays. Netscott 18:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How does one show the kind of civility you talk about when faced with this kind of bigotry? You wouldn't ask a Jew to be civil if people were editing articles categorically demonizing them as a people, or mocking their religion. The only awareness I see of Timothy Usher's POV are from those that agree with him and edit war in collaboration with him. I see nothing in the way of efforts to make the articles on Islam/Muslims reflect a more NPOV. You've certainly done nothing to fix that. Don't talk to me about 'civil' when hypocrites apply these double standards. His Excellency... 04:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You should know that if this account stays permanently blocked you stay permanently blocked.... regardless of what account you edit with. The permanent block on this account essentially means you are permanently blocked on any account that you have and if you are found to be editing on another account it too will be blocked accordingly. Netscott 19:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Learn to read. I never implied I intended on opening another account. I know my IP is blocked as well. What I said is, I don't like being the only person here who's trying to correct the overwhelming prejudice here. I felt obligated to correct all this POV pushing. Being blocked gives me a perfectly good reason to not have to put up with the nonsense. Now you can go to the Aisha page and add "she was Muhammad's little whore" to the intro. The content as your friends arranged it already implied that. You can go to the Muhammad page and list him as a war criminal. Go back to the Wikiproject:Islam page. You forgot to add "get baptized" to the "Do's" list. His Excellency... 20:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that'd suck if you ever change your mind later on... what I meant to say is that if you created another account and your editing habits led someone to believe it was you then if it was proved that you were indeed editing on another account, it'd be blocked. But if you're serious about not coming back to edit on Wikipedia I suppose it doesn't matter. My previous comments in this regard were sooner an attempt to encourage you to make amends and get back on track. Netscott 21:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"Clearly neither of you are giving an "NPOV" account of ongoings in the ANI. Can I be cleared there to speak for myself? His Excellency... 04:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

From the ANI that I can't directly respond in:

''"I do believe the selective sense of offense shown by Tom harrison here and Netscott is equatable to racism,of course save that Muslims aren't in fact a race." [120] The above is what remained after his "Removing heated remarks made in frustration." Do you agree with me, Bishonen, that those remarks are a clear personal attack on the integrity of an admin? Tom Harrison Talk 18:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)"''

Actually no. I didn't say you are a racist, I said that your 'selective sense of offense' is equitable to racism. I criticized your actions here, which I am permitted to do. Let me elaborate on this. This was your comment on FairNBalanced's proposed indefinite block:

''I think an indefinite block would be excessive. Let's see if FnB behaves himself after his week is up. Further discussion might be more appropriate to an RfC. Tom Harrison Talk 15:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)''

This is in response to FairNBalanced posting an image of a pig with "Allah" scrolled on it, in Arabic. In addition, he posted an image of a US soldier torturing an Iraqi prisoner, one of the Abu Ghraib pictures, with some attempt at comical mockery under it. There was other commentary,blatantly offensive, which I will not repeat here. It was also noted FairNBalanced placed himself in the Wikiproject:Islam page and the Muslim guild, where he knew Muslims would likely view his user page.

In my instance, my offense was saying that Timothy Usher was a practicing bigot. In that instance, Tom Harrison decided a warning was unnecessary, and placed an indefinite block. Tom will probably point to my past actions as justification for the block. According to the ANI, all those who aren't parties in this long-drawn disagreement seem to agree that my comment didn't amount to a serious personal attack, or at least one that warranted a block. One person who commented pointed out that WP policy doesn't allow for such a block for offenses of this nature. What Tom, and Netscott would suggest is that what isn't seen to be a personal attack becomes a personal attack when a block history can be pointed out. That's new to me. Assuming 3RR blocks aren't parts of the equation (if you check, the first 3RR block was wrongly applied, and was reversed by another admin), the only glaring offense that merits attention is Tom's 1 week block for 'personal insult' against Timothy. Go back through conversations between myself and Timothy during the time period relevant here, and take note of all the instances where Timothy expressed himself in a manner that could be considered as making 'personal attacks'. Note how he dismisses edits by other users as 'vandalism'. According to WP rules, there ARE offenses worse than personal attack, and in this context I'd suggest you look to the articles that Timothy have edited, and check for violations of NPOV. How is it that Tom only managed to see, and respond, to the offenses committed against Timothy, but didn't see those committed by him? Hence, the double standards I spoke of, which I do see as comparable to racism.

So no, what I stated was not a clear personal attack on Tom Harrison's integrity as an admin. It was a well thought criticism of a pattern of behavior on his part. His Excellency... 20:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My Response
Earlier remarks were made in frustration, and since it's said offending comments can be removed, I'll remove them from here. I do believe the selective sense of offense shown by Tom harrison here and Netscott is equatable to racism,of course save that Muslims aren't in fact a race. Aside from that technicality, the root sentiment is the same. The fact that my mere accusation that Timothy Usher is a bigot, a statement which I do and will stand by, garners a harsher response from people like Tom Harrison and Netscott and Percher (the four of whom, including Timothy Usher, are very close) than FairNBalanced (whose offenses include posting a picture of a pig with Allah (in arabic) superimposed on it using photoshop, in addition to directly offensive comments, and mockery of the torture of Muslim captives in Iraq) is illustrative of this prejudice. The fact that this simple comment earns demands for a permenant ban while FairNBalanced recieved protests stating the 1 week ban was too much, illustrates this prejudice quite well.

Anyway, I think it's permissible for me to defend myself here since I'm blocked from the WP:ANI, correct me if I'm wrong (I would appreciate being allowed to respond on the ANI btw). As such, I would like to use this bit of space to substantiate my statement that the user I called a bigot, is, in fact, a bigot. The word "bigot" has meaning, as you can find out searching any dictionary. In the right context, the term is a suitable one to describe certain people, right? Note the pattern of behavior as I described on the talk page of Wikiproject:Islam, the person's pattern of editing, his vandalism of the project page in question, and his personal comments which I posted on the Wikiproject:Islam talk page. I would also like to expand on the point that the bigotry expressed in Wikipedia in the form of highly offensive (deliberately so) and polemic editing in the topics relating to Islam and Muslims is in fact a real phenomena and is widespread; and that the said form of bigotry that is openly and actively practiced here is in need of serious consideration and response. His Excellency... 04:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

On Comments Regarding Timothy Usher (Basis of Block)
This is basically a list of comments, shown double standards, evidence of selective memory of WP rules (eg consensus, NPOV, RS).To regain my freedom to edit articles, I'm being told to "repent", to "make amends". I'm being told to contact the allegedly (my allegation, as stated above) biased admin and promise to 'follow the rules' that he selectively applies on users where (IMO) POV is the selecting criteria. If it's fair enough, I'd rather prove what I said is in fact true. I suggest you check out the edit history on pages pointed to here, and go over the talk pages and edit histories. Differentiate from polemicist sources and those of scholarly/academic credibility.

Quotes by Timothy Usher:

''"PBUHing Muhammad is also the PBUHing of the beheading of the Banu Qurayza (did someone mention Abu Ghraib? Did someone mention Zarqawi?), the taking of captives for "wives" (one immediately after her husband was slain), the imposition of serfdom upon the Jews of Khaybar, etc. I oppose the slaughter and enslavement of innocent people, and I oppose PBUHing anyone who's done it. Jimbo Wales (PBUH) seems more appropriate to me.Timothy Usher 11:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)"

"...All the data comes from devout admirers of Muhammad, who considered his actions and those of his companions - the cold-blooded execution of Jewish POWs, the taking of female Jewish captives as slaves and wives, the sale of Jewish children into slavery, the confiscation of Jewish property and the imposition of serfdom upon its former owners, the murder of Jewish poets, etc. - right, just and glorious.Timothy Usher 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)"

"You insist on taking the least nuanced, most condemnational interpretation possible, and one that doesn't show an adequarte understanding of American discourse. You've been Karl Meiering this guy. We're in a war, you know. We were attacked. I understand this is itself a simplistic statement, but it's a simplicity a very large number of people would sign onto.Timothy Usher 08:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)"

The following was repeatedly added to the Wikiproject:Islam page without any attempt towards getting consensus. Even nonMuslims found this item from the 'do's and do nots" list to be ridiculous. I've pointed out that the statement would be deemed offensive to any Muslim, particularly considering it is a religious obligation for Muslims to greet each other with 'salaam'. I doubt he didn't know this already:  Do not use markers of sectarian identity, such as greeting other editors with "Salam, brother", appending (PBUH) to mentions of prophets, etc. This is divisive and alienating to editors from other backgrounds. 

Remember, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and your user page is not an appropriate place for persuading other editors of the virtues of your way of life.

It should be noted, the above 'rules' (and I've told them repeatedly they're not supported by WP policy or guidelines) were not in provoked by the actions of any Muslim that resulted in a vocal expression of 'alienation' by nonmuslims. One nonmuslim remarked in response to this absurd rule, "if you feel alienated, because you are not a Muslim, call a doctor".

His Excellency... 05:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't delete content on this talk page. Just as previous blocks have been used as justification for this current block, I imagine this current block will be used in the future. Thus, statements I make in my defense are as worthy of keeping in record as the record of the original block itself. If an admin cites previous blocks as justification of future ones, I can expect him to be aware of the reasons in their totality, rather than merely one POV. Alternatively, this content may be useful in future RFCs, ANIs, etc. His Excellency... 00:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Does taking a dim view of Muhammad's treatment of the Banu Qurayza and Banu Nadir really constitute bigotry against 1+ billion Muslims? Or just "bigotry" against Muhammad's actions?


 * Similarly, with advocating a non-sectarian atmosphere. If Christians (such as myself) start referring to Jesus as "The Lord Jesus Christ" and greeting one another (and only one another) with, "Peace, my brother in the One True Faith", be assured that I will say something about it (note my recent edit to WikiProject Christianity), and if it continues unabated, while I'm attacked for having counselled against it, I might get testy about it.  That's not bigotry.


 * Dev had a point when she said I was starting to sound rude. I acknowledge that, and regret it.  It's not my intention to agitate anyone.  We can all understand that agitated people tend to respond in a manner which agitates others, and there's been a lot of that going around.Timothy Usher 22:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dev musnt know you very well if she thinks you're starting to sound rude. You know precisely the tone you're hitting when you make your remarks. As for your 'bigotry' against Muhammad, your comments weren't made as responses to a "what do you think of Muhammad" interview. You were responding to remarks related to your edits, and to the blocking of FairNBalanced's open show of hatred against Muslims. Your demand that Muslims not say salaam to each other is nothing short of bigotry, considering you knew such a demand would be offensive."We're in a war, you know. We were attacked. I understand this is itself a simplistic statement, but it's a simplicity a very large number of people would sign onto." My advice is that you sign up to fight in Iraq instead of trying to fight Muslims on your computer. Your angst would be better made use of if you'd sign up to go to Iraq and fight alongside your fellow war criminals. His Excellency... 23:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Block reduced
As you may know I posted a link to your response on the WP:ANI report concerning your indef. block. Your block has been correctly reduced to 3 days. Please do come back to edit but do so with civility. As I said before you do yourself no help when through lack of civility you incline others to discount you and your edits. Netscott 14:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The more you lecture me on civility, the more I'm inclined to believe you lack understand of what civility is. You seem to see 'civility' in choices of words, not in actions or tones or behaviors. If you did see civility in the broader sense, you'd be requesting civility not just from me, but the people I'm responding to. I think it's incivility on your part that you shrug off what you know to be open prejudices here, and hatred-driven POV pushing. I think it's incivility on Tom Harrison's part to selectively apply 'the rules' on some people, and give others a free pass. I think it's mind bogglingly uncivilized that so many editors here devote themselves to expressing hatred in everything they do, even in editing this online encyclopedia. I take exception to the actions and behaviors of nation states and peoples and I disagree with many religions (occasionally Islam too), but I don't spend my time limiting my work to those subjects I disagree with, much less hate. It's mind boggling that people have been so saturated by hate that they'll read volumes of books on Islam, sign up with dozens of Islam-bashing polemicist websites (Ali Sina, FrontPagemag.com), efforts towards learning they've made at no other point of their life, and use that learning to encourage further disenfranchisement of people who follow a particular religion. In my opinion, that is uncivilized. As for my behavior, I think it would be downright uncivilized of me to see the kind of games being played, to see the deliberate humiliation of Muslims here, and not speak up about it. So please spare me lectures on civility. His Excellency... 15:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You know you've made less than friendly statements in my regard and I haven't responded negatively. I'm not "lecturing" you but sooner counciling you from my POV. What is funny is that there are two sides to the story. There are those who say that Islamists are overrunning Wikipedia and doing their best to glorify Islam and it's history and there are those who hold anti-Islam sentiments. I can honestly say that I see both sides. I don't know you... I only know you from what I've seen of you regarding User:FairNBalanced, User:Timothy Usher and User:Tom harrison while there's no denying you make valid points it's hard to see them past the warring going on amongst everyone. You've taken potshots at myself even here... and I haven't responded to them as I tend to think they are "comments said in frustration" but others don't tend to be so forgiving and that's just going to work against you. I understand your doubt about myself as well because you don't know me either but I would think that my actions have spoken fairly loudly as to what I'm about particularly in that I've actually assisted you by posting your desire to express yourself with a link on the WP:ANI report concerning your block. That said please realize that I hold strong views when it comes to abiding by WP:CIV. If an editor is repeatedly falling outside of that policy, I'm not going be making any efforts on behalf of that editor. Netscott 16:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * On the 'two sides', if you look at Shariah, Hizb Ut-Tahrir, and Islamism, you'll see I've edited to correct (ie bring NPOV) for the Islam-is-nothing-but-great bias too. However, it would be deceptive to suggest both sides you speak of are equal in numbers or in their degree of fanaticism. As for my tone in speaking to you,fair enough. Let's settle on this. Let's both limit conversations with each other to articles and their content. You can vote for or against banning me on ANIs or RFCs or whatever, that's your call to make. I would appreciate you not posting anything directed to me here unless it's in regards to an article or some other dispute. I would particularly appreciate you not singling me out for lectures on civility. I don't know if you notice it, but to constantly badger people with 'be civil' comments can in itself be seen as offending. That being said, I can't force you to do or not do what you want here. I haven't posted anything on your talk page, and I won't. His Excellency... 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

From the ANI that I can't directly respond in:

''"I do believe the selective sense of offense shown by Tom harrison here and Netscott is equatable to racism,of course save that Muslims aren't in fact a race." [120] The above is what remained after his "Removing heated remarks made in frustration." Do you agree with me, Bishonen, that those remarks are a clear personal attack on the integrity of an admin? Tom Harrison Talk 18:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)"''

Actually no. I didn't say you are a racist, I said that your 'selective sense of offense' is equitable to racism. I criticized your actions here, which I am permitted to do. Let me elaborate on this. This was your comment on FairNBalanced's proposed indefinite block:

''I think an indefinite block would be excessive. Let's see if FnB behaves himself after his week is up. Further discussion might be more appropriate to an RfC. Tom Harrison Talk 15:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)''

This is in response to FairNBalanced posting an image of a pig with "Allah" scrolled on it, in Arabic. In addition, he posted an image of a US soldier torturing an Iraqi prisoner, one of the Abu Ghraib pictures, with some attempt at comical mockery under it. There was other commentary,blatantly offensive, which I will not repeat here. It was also noted FairNBalanced placed himself in the Wikiproject:Islam page and the Muslim guild, where he knew Muslims would likely view his user page.

In my instance, my offense was saying that Timothy Usher was a practicing bigot. In that instance, Tom Harrison decided a warning was unnecessary, and placed an indefinite block. Tom will probably point to my past actions as justification for the block. According to the ANI, all those who aren't parties in this long-drawn disagreement seem to agree that my comment didn't amount to a serious personal attack, or at least one that warranted a block. One person who commented pointed out that WP policy doesn't allow for such a block for offenses of this nature. What Tom, and Netscott would suggest is that what isn't seen to be a personal attack becomes a personal attack when a block history can be pointed out. That's new to me. Assuming 3RR blocks aren't parts of the equation (if you check, the first 3RR block was wrongly applied, and was reversed by another admin), the only glaring offense that merits attention is Tom's 1 week block for 'personal insult' against Timothy. Go back through conversations between myself and Timothy during the time period relevant here, and take note of all the instances where Timothy expressed himself in a manner that could be considered as making 'personal attacks'. Note how he dismisses edits by other users as 'vandalism'. According to WP rules, there ARE offenses worse than personal attack, and in this context I'd suggest you look to the articles that Timothy have edited, and check for violations of NPOV. Take note of the instance when Timothy Usher impersonated a Muslim, and tried to get individuals who've demonstrated anti-muslim sentiment to be involved in wikiproject:Islam. How is it that Tom only managed to see, and respond, to the offenses committed against Timothy, but didn't see those committed by him? Hence, the double standards I spoke of, which I do see as comparable to racism.

So no, what I stated was not a clear personal attack on Tom Harrison's integrity as an admin. It was a well thought criticism of a pattern of behavior on his part. His Excellency... 20:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Block reduction
This multiple accounts business is rather confusing. I reduced the block time for the Amibidhrohi account some hours ago and posted a notice on User talk:Amibidhrohi. I hope you saw it. I'm not certain how to make sure your IP gets unblocked after three days, but I'll have a go. Er, so have you got any other indefinitely blocked accounts? Bishonen | talk 16:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

First of all, thanks for your participation on the ANI. I really appreciate it. No, these are the only two accounts. I have a pretty good reason for changing account IDs, once that's directly stated as being legit according to WP:sockpuppets. Though I'd like to be able to edit, I expect I'll be limiting my editing, or stopping altogether. In my book, nothing of involvement limited to the internet should generate such real frustration. His Excellency... 17:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, well, it shouldn't, but the wikiholics keep at it..! Maybe you're not in that category, though. Bishonen | talk 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

Requested unblock
Per, I wouldn't want you to feel unable to present your case. It's User:Bishonen's block now, but I have no objection if she unblocks you so you can speak for yourself. Tom Harrison Talk 20:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Civility
Regarding edits such as this: Personal attacks are not allowed. Do NOT comment on other editors; only the contributions they make. Continuing to make such personal attacks may result in the loss of your privilage to edit this page while you are blocked, or further blocks once this one expires. --InShaneee 04:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've edited that particular comment. I think some people are using a terribly broad definition of 'personal attack'. Can a criticism based on a pattern of editing, or observable difference in application of standards be called a 'personal attack', when in fact the criticism is founded on the individual's work and not their person? What should one do if he sees what appears to be a bias in editing, in applying standards, or in application of WP rules or punishments? I gave an example here, in regards to the difference in response to my offense (read above for the details), and how the same admin who advocated a permanent block in this situation figured FairNBalanced's more serious offense didn't deserve such a block. In such a context, should those who observe the bias be forced to maintain silence? You can't contrast two actions without putting some light on the person whose work you're comparing. Anyway, anything else needs changing, let me know. His Excellency... 04:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, yes, it is most always considered improper to comment about an editor himself. Say "I think this edit is improper because..." instead of "I think you make improper edits" tends to head off a lot of difficulties. --InShaneee 19:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for removing some of the material. I hope over the next few weeks we can work together to resolve our differences. Tom Harrison Talk 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be best that we not work together, under any circumstances. There is no interpretation of your actions that allows me to assume good faith of them. Admins are not elected based on merit or ability, just popularity. An illustration of one of the reasons why Wikipedia is such a horrible idea. His Excellency... 23:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll remind you once again not only to not make personal attacks, but to not violate WP:AGF. --InShaneee 02:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert on CAIR article
Hi,

I recently reverted one of your edits on the CAIR article. It appeared from the change that you had deleteded a lot of information, but from looking at it further it may have mostly been a re-arrangement of the article. Sorry if this was the case. Nloth 04:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

HI your Excellency (amusing title),

Listen. I thank you for your reason and knowledge of Wikipedia in taking on partisanship on this article. No doubt even the user above Nloth was part of the gang whose help Sdedeo requested in overturning my edits.

I want to know (since I am new to Wiki ;0) would I be able to revert back to the minor edits I made whichh do adhere to the NPOV?

Or will I not be able to since if I do, User andjam sdedeo Nloth would again form an alliance and delete it?

Thanks for your help. Awaiting your Excellency's advice. Tyruler 14:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If you edits adhered to NPOV and were accurate, re-add them in. Don't revert, since that'd undo alot of other changes. His Excellency...

Articles for deletion/Dhimmi
This was very wrong. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Explanation in detail in my note at the above link. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll only respond to say that I did not use my admin powers in connection with this incident. Before I was promoted, I may have done the same thing. I'd like to ask you to AfD Judaism because everything within is written from a Jewish POV. Ridiculous. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How did you become an admin? Your rhetoric here is ridiculous. His Excellency... 17:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The community found him worthy: Requests_for_adminship/Crzrussian Hope that helps. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[''per ANI discussion, I have removed a PA warning here by InShaneee. Bishonen | talk 12:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC).'']

Are you just sitting there waiting to block me? I remarked on his comment, not on HIM. Please withdraw this warning. His Excellency... 17:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[''Removing renewed PA warning. Bishonen | talk 12:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC).''

Ouch, that warning was a bit harsh. Anyway, with respect to the wonderful argument you two are having, an article being totally or not totally POV is not germane to nominating it for AFD. An article being POV is not a reason for deletion, per the Deletion policy, very first paragraph. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, "an article being POV" suggests a misunderstanding of what POV is. The Article For Deletion page states NPOV as one of the 4 standards all articles must meet, where those that don't shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Observed NPOV is CLEARLY not a justification alone given other avenues are available. However, I've spend CONSIDERABLE time on the article, and it's overwhelmingly clear that there is absolutely no interest on either side to create an article that's remotely NPOV. As such, and in accordance to WP:AFD, the article should be deleted. Unless policy is changed such that NPOV is no longer mentioned on WP:AFD, my action s can't be labeled an inappropriate one. His Excellency... 17:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure it can. :-). Inappropriate may be a bit strong, I'd say misguided. :-) When you see POV in an article, you edit the article, you argue about it with the other editors in the article, go through the whole Resolving disputes thing. You don't delete the article, that's overkill, takes useful information with the bad, and also possibly ineffective, since a few months later someone else who wasn't in the AFD will notice we don't have an article for such an important term, and will want to create it all over again. Deletion is for stuff that reasonable people won't want to create - Dhimmi is a fairly important term, both historically, and, unfortunately, in the modern political climate. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hope you'll look at the actual article being discussed. If you've got a yen against Muslims, you'll love it. The same characters have been editing all the WP on Islam (directly or indirectly) articles using polemic islamohobic rhetoric all throughout the article. WP is essentially being made into a platform for hate speech against Muslims, and nobody seems to mind it. His Excellency... 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone minds it - you clearly do. Go make it better. Resolving disputes is full of advice on formal arguing. My offhand suggestion would be to suggest that some of the more controversial entries be changed from "Muslims did X" to "Bat Yeor in Book A states Muslims did X", which might help somewhat; if you can find something that says "... while Foo Bar, in Book B, on the other hand, says Muslims did Y", that might help further. Good luck. Meanwhile, though, it's good to keep this in perspective. Surely an article about legal discrimination 150 years ago is not the worst evidence of Islamophobia you can find given modern, daily, events. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And what have I been doing all this time, if not trying to 'make it better'. Too many users have suggested that, too few actually participate. Very few Muslims bother to participate here any more. I'm quite done myself. You can take a shot at it. His Excellency... 19:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately for implementing that suggestion, I'm completely uneducated in the subject, so I have no idea what parts are controversial and what parts aren't. In other words, while I take your word that there is something wrong, I don't see it. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Incivility
For the record, I disagree with the warning and think neither of us has been incivil. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Discussions do get heated up here sometimes. His Excellency... 21:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the deal?
Why are you discouraging editors from trying to contribute here? In your view things are negative relative to Islam on Wikipedia so with you discouraging editors like User:Aminz how do ever expect things to improve? Seriously? Netscott 22:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Things won't improve regardless. Muslim participation only creates the illusion that the propaganda is supported by a Muslim or two. That their contributions get reverted in minutes doesn't get noted. It is better that Muslims not give the bigotry ridden rhetoric credibility by assisting in these articles. His Excellency... 22:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh huh, I see... one thing I know about Wikipedia is that one has to struggle (meant in the strictest positive sense) to make contributions here. If a particular individual doesn't have the fortitude to meet that struggle then it's likely their contributions won't survive. As I've explained to User:Jeremygbyrne in a similar discussion it's difficult to have respect for those with defeatist attitudes. Netscott 22:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Defeatest? I'm being pragmatic. The people on Wikipedia are deaf and blind to reason and logic. WP:NPOV isn't negotiable unless the topic is Islam, in which case the only POV worth accounting for is that of the likes of --- -and --- and the rest of their league. Throughout the rest of the world Bat Yeor is a polemicist and an activist. When she speaks in Universities, her audiences walk out on her. She even gets condemned by the very pro-Israeli organizations she'd claim to represent. On Wikipedia she's the prime source for all scholarship on Islam. WP:NPOV? WP:RS got dismissed as a guideline on Dhimmi. Apparently having sources be reliable is only a fad when the topic is Islamic history. The AFD was summarily cancelled, almost as soon as it was introduced. It was an absolutely reasonable procedure, and would have been supported if the same lines of rhetoric were targeted at Jews in article after article. Suppose an article of Jewish history had 50% of its content derived from Mein Khamph, using that as a source and framing its rants as fact? How would the AFD had gone if the subject were an article on African American history that relied primarily on books written by the David Dukes of America? People are quick to react when the target of vilification are those of certain identities, less so when the targets are Muslim. That's precisely what's going on with Dhimmi. Wikipedia has become a soapbox for the Islamophobes, with the consent of the larger Wikipedia community. Muslims should not participate in this. His Excellency... 22:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's that question again, What is the deal? Why are you getting so excited about it and making so much noise when you have such a "Muslims should just give up" attitude? In my mind all that is needed to help get the ball rolling is a well balanced person truly dedicated to the struggle to get Wikiepdia articles balanced and neutral. Being discouraging doesn't fall into such a description. Netscott 22:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

H.E. We must admit that the quote you want to add is not written by a renowned scholar. I am not sure if you would be able to defend its reliability sufficiently. We don't have to use not so sure sources. I have got Lewis 1984. You can get his other books or works of other renowned scholars. What's wrong with it? Why are you making life hard for you? Why do you insist on quoting from a not renowned scholar? --Aminz 05:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I'm going to empty my watchlist and hopefully stop participating here. It's a bit addictive actually. I left a message on your talk page. If you're busy with real life, stick to real life and give up this Wikipedia thing. It's not productive. Who cares about what Muslims did in the year 900? Does reading Lewis or Stillman or Ye'or have anything to do with our lives today? When I first came to Wikipedia, I edited articles dealing with current events, particularly Islamism. This haggling over ancient history is meaningless- everyone treated outsides like shit back then. We don't owe an apology to the world's Jewish population because Umar bin Whatever made Jews wear funny slippers in Yemen. If Merzbow or Usher or Pecher wants to waste their lives reading that drivel, let them. It's not my problem and it shouldnt be yours. Read books that will give you knowlege and understanding that'll improve your own life. I don't read Lewis because that information would do nothing to benefit me. Don't waste time with those who devote their time to things they hate. In practice, that is islamically haraam. Assalamu Alaikum. His Excellency... 05:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not that irrelevant. I will know my religion better by doing research. Our present life is nothing but a short part of a long "history." Why do you want to leave? Why not editing less? --Aminz 05:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no positive outcome in this matter. Nerdy-but-virulent islamophobes who didn't have the guts to go to war are playing games here. You know the cliche about wrestling with pigs. "You'll get dirty and the pig likes it". Well, it's something like that.It's not worth the mud.His Excellency... 05:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I know it is hard, but I'll try, if I failed, I may give up. BTW, it is not that Muslims were treating Non-Muslims better than that of Christians, Lewis says Muslims rarely persecuted Jews. They were very tolerant in that respect. There was discrimination but no violence. The Christian case was also worst in this regard. I'll add all these after I get more knowledge about the matter. I don't want to appear as a fool or dishonest person. Regards, --Aminz 05:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll get back to you soon. I am just very slow in typing. I just saw an "important" point you made on the talk page of Dhimmi. --Aminz 06:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

H.E. Thanks for your comments on my talk page. Have you had a look at the works of William Montgomery Watt?

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/watt.html

http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/articles/2000_watt.htm

Thanks for the sites. I have an Ahmed Deedat book in which he comments on some American or European man listing Muhammad as the most influential man in History. The entire book is founded on that observation. I often wondered "did you need a white man to tell you your prophet was influential?". Otherwise, why the big celebration? I don't need another anglo to reassure me that Muhammad was in fact just. I knew that to begin with. I see this as a residue of our past as European colonies. We still feel the need to have the white skinned folks approve of us. His Excellency... 07:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

H.E. I agree with you. All we need is a Muslim scholar (renowned among Muslims) who has written extensively about Dhimmi and its history. That’s what we lack. --Aminz 07:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Prosecutions by Prophet Muhammad
Salaam, I was thinking that if an article can be created which would discuss all the reasons why Prophet Muhammad prosecuted these people. What I have understood so far, I wrote on Banu Nadir/mpov under Muslims explanation for prosectuion. It is very important because the battles and People killed by Prophet Muhammad is a very important part of Islamic history. And then a link to this article can be given on every page which would discuss such killings. This proposal can also be posted on Muslim Guild project. The work has to be top class because the way he is being portrayed, that doesn't make a good sketch of prophet Muhammad's personality in one's mind.
 * This article gives reasons for different actions by early Muslim society. SaadSaleem 07:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you read my talk page and what I've posted on Aminz's, I really don't think it's worth the trouble fixing articles here. Trust me, you'll be extremely frustrated when the mob of Islamophobes decend on you. It's too much hassle and you achieve nothing. His Excellency... 07:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Walking contradiction
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=61046791&oldid=61036521 Give up! Don't edit!] Whatever man, your statements are frequently polemic and I'm seeing more and more why no one values your input. Particularly as your statements seem more geared to turn Wikipedia into a battleground and are defeatist. You frequently talk of hate out of one side of your keyboard but then make rather hateful statement on the other.... Netscott 17:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's some more polemic goodness.

Wikipedia has been turned into a soap box for anti-Islamic propaganda and hate speech. Bat Ye'or's insane rhetoric is being framed as fact here for God's sake.You already know what's going on here. By definition, a polemic is someone who incites a dispute. There NEEDS to be a dispute here. You're fine with Aisha being represented as a whore in her article, I'm not. You're fine with Muhammad being portrayed as an extravagant genocidal psychopath, I'm not. Yes, I am in fact 'hateful' of the bigotry that's flooded into this thing. I don't go about editing articles on Judaism, taking content out of Mein Khamph as if it's fact. That's what your friends do here. You're not of Muslim heritage, none of this means anything to you. People like Daniel Pipes has been open in saying the enfranchisement of Muslims in the US is a threat to 'Jewish interests' (his words, not mine). The lobbying groups backing him up have people like Bat Ye'or addressing congress. On the media front, everything on Muslims that US citizens are exposed to pushes the negative image. If you've ever lived outside the US, you'd know the difference. Enter a word on google or Yahoo, its Wikipedia entry is the first thing to appear in the list. And the first item which, given the popularity of Wikipedia, most people would probably click on, would present them with the most vilifying and negative POV-driven image of what Islam and Muslims are about. People get saturated with this view of Muslims, and they become less sympathetic when a needless process of war kills over 100,000 brown arab 'towel heads'. Guantanamos and Abu Ghraibs don't really bother them much anymore; given what they've heard about those A-rabs, they probably got what's coming to them.There's a reason why many European countries cut off freedom of speech when it serves the purpose of defamation.

So don't lecture me one way or the other. His Excellency... 17:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't know me, you don't know where I live, you have no f'ing clue who I am and yet you assume so much. And you keep talking about "my friends". Is it not evident where I stand on these types of issues? I don't live in the U.S. and in the country I do live Arabs represent the number two sector of the population. I've had nothing but good relations with Arab and Muslim folks and in fact lived with a north-Moroccan for two freaking years. So you know what, just get the f off of your freaking high-horse and chill. Seriously trying embracing the concept of assuming good faith more frequently... you'll likely do yourself and Wikipedia (which you yourself seem to want to be involved in despite your rather lame attempts at discouraging others) a lot of good. Netscott 18:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith on the part of some people is a foolish task. I don't assume good faith when there's reason and evidence to believe otherwise. WP:AGF doesn't oblige me to. I've made no assumptions about your 'faith', so quit complaining. Congratulations on living with a north-Moroccan for two years. Your thank-you-for-living-with-us gift is in the mail. There are people outside of the Wikipedia network who are noticing the flood of bigotry being dumped here. It's not just something that I see, that nobody else does. His Excellency... 18:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

re: advice
thank you for your advice, i will certainly ponder over it.

in reality, this is something i had in consideration long before i ever joined up with wikipedia. i did not enjoy the fact that many of the articles contained what can only be called a culmination of polemics and pseudo-scholarly tirade. i did share your views on this matter and i probably still do with regards to some of it. with regards to lahw al-hadeeth (idle talks) then this refers to the vain and unislamic discussions bereft of benefit or use (it also refers to singing and instruments). perhaps one can argue that engaging on wikipedia is the principle of when seeing an evil, changing it with your hand; if this is not possible, change it with your tongue or speak out against it; if that is not possible then at least hate it in your heart and that is the weakest of 'imaan.

it is also important to consider that perhaps participation here will result in a lesser evil i.e. which is the greater evil? not participating and having articles which will feed millions of readers with polemics, or participating and at the very least making the lives of pov-pushers difficult, if not getting the other opinions included in the article?

in my experience i have noticed that not many muslims have the guts for a fight... here as well as other media platforms. the lethargy and helplessness we see globally, and the destruction we have witnessed over the past few centuries is due to our own failings and our own deviation. our disorganisation and our uselessness.. we will always remain like that until we change what is in our own selves. as a non-muslm, you may or may not understand that. i don't know. i find it rather sad and telling that muslims require the non-muslims to be standing up for them.

i am not interested in apologetics or making friends. i'm not into edit-wars per se where one will be trying to get other POV into the article, as i prefer discussing proposed changes first so that there is no basis for opposition when changes are made. i am interested in raising the standard and quality of sources used by muslims in their responses which will weaken opposition to its inclusion. what i see from muslims is attempts to use weak sources (websites et al) in their edits and attempts to bring about NPOV. if only they realise that we have a rich history of literature which even the polemical orientalists (mis)use then we at least have a leg to stand on. there are other things i think muslims here need to do which i may divulge at a later time.

again thank you for your advice. for now i will continue to participate and broaden the range of articles to which i contribute.  ITAQALLAH  18:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 1 week
I have blocked you and your admitted sockpuppet for one week for disruption and continued personal attacks. The disruption would be for putting a 27 month old article (Dhimmi) up for deletion on completely incorrect grounds. Putting articles up for deletion is not the way to settle an edit war. I could cite many edits in the last few days for personal attacks but I'll just use this one and this one. The thing is, His Excellency, I have no problems with what your POV is. I have problems with how you continually attack others. And I'm completely neutral on this one. I've had 0 contact with any of the users involved in this article (except a post or two on Netscott's talk page). --Woohookitty(meow) 03:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What the heck are you talking about? WP:AFD lists NPOV as the very FIRST criteria articles must abide by, and STATES that articles that don't shouldn't be on Wikipedia space. The AFD didn't close the article or block it- it 'disrupted' nothing. The article was almost entirely based on the views of two controversial authors and misleadingly represented their views as fact. I tried other means of bringing NPOV, but those efforts didn't work. AFD's a procedure through which attention can be drawn to the quality of the article and particularly the issue of whether or not the article belonged on Wikipedia. People had the opportunity to vote how it should've gone. There was no 'disruption'. There was no bad faith in my part in filing the AFD. What I did was absolutely within the rules.


 * As for the points you linked as 'personal attack', there's no personal attack there. I made one sarcastic remark on him saying he lived with a Moroccan for 2 years, but that's more bland humor than an attack. I was discussing a situation which both he and I are aware of. He'd probably agree with some of the points I made. I made no comment 'attacking' him, although I pointed out reasons why the issue I discussed would be taken more seriously by someone who is a muslim (or in my case, from a Muslim family) than he, who is not. He commented on my demeanor here, I responded. Though the exchange was heated, there was no personal attack. Now unblock me.


 * And 'admitted' implies I'm confessing something. I posted that this ID was an alternative to my 'sockpuppet' as soon as I made it. I haven't used the other id since I created this one, so technically it's not a sockpuppet at all, just an old ID. You're clearly in violation of WP:AGF on at least one point (the AFD matter) if not two, or three. His Excellency... 03:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are clearly misrepresenting Deletion_policy. It says that "Failure to conform to NPOV is usually remedied by editing, but text that violates any of the remaining content policies is subject to the Wikipedia: Deletion policy." This strongly implies that AFD is exactly the wrong thing to do with articles that are NPOV but that do not violate the other three policies (V, NOR, and copyright). So far, you have failed to gain any consensus for your opinion that Ye'or should be removed from the article, but despite that, you have unilaterally attempted to remove all her material only to be summarily reverted and chastized by other editors. - Merzbow 04:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Failure to conform to NPOV is usually remedied by editing... No, what that implies is that AFD is USUALLY remedied by editing. Potential exceptions are acknowleged in usually. That Islamic articles would be flooded by people like yourself who fill articles with polemic rants masquerading as fact, while deleting anything that might be suggestive of another perspective, MIGHT qualify for such an exception, I don't know. Wikipedia is already getting outside press for being a loudspeaker for wannabe Bat Ye'ors like yourself. I was just trying to bring Wikipedia a bit of respect by pulling the Islam-related articles to a more NPOV. Apparently nobody else is interested. Even Aminz is more concerned with not disappointing his Western friends. His Excellency... 07:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * His excellency, you admit that you don't always assume good faith. So crying that others aren't isn't quite on the up and up. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't use my assumptions to block people, you do. WP:AGF doesn't require me to assume good faith when I know of evidence to the contrary. I know the editors who frequent the Islam pages well enough to know their patterns and POVs. I don't assume good faith of people like Merzbow or Pecher or Timothy Usher...Given your response and lame reasoning, your behind the scenes complaints against me on ANI without notifying me and other discussions, my ability to assume good faith in you is dissolving as well. Yes, I called you a moron in my e-mail to you. Quit whining about it; WP policy doesn't extend to anything off WP. His Excellency... 04:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * ROFL. "Whilst you may not be directly penalised for off-wiki attacks, they may be taken as aggravating factors when any on-wiki policy violations are being considered. For example, they can be used as evidence of bad faith in the dispute-resolution process, or as evidence in ArbCom cases." . - Merzbow 07:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd have to admit, I don't particularly like how the whole admin thing is set up in Wikipedia. The same day he blocked me, earlier, I was threatened by another admin with a block simply for using the adjective 'ridiculous' for describing a statement. A statement! That was reversed and the threat removed on inspection by another admin. So far, at least 3 blocks made against me by admins were reversed when I managed to voice out my reasons why the blocks were wrong. Others have been critisized as being over-the-top, or baseless. Admins have to recognize that when they use the block as a means to muzzle a person, the person they muzzle has some right to be angry. People don't like being silenced, particularly without discussion or warning. Had he spoken to me, explained what he thought was wrong, and heard my account of my reasons and actions, I wouldn't have minded if he still felt the block was deserved. As for this constant complaining from various ends that I'm being uncivil, I don't think it's fair or reasonable to expect one from a Muslim background to read what's being pushed on Wikipedia and not expect him to be angry.Look at the Islamic_science recently? Apparently Muslims didn't invent anything, they just claim the works of others. "The Islamization of knowlege". No mention of the contribution of the ancient universities in Baghdad and the such to medicine or to agriculture, no mention about their work in the treatment of diseases...No, just 'stockpiling of nuclear weapons'. His Excellency... 15:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Unblock request denied. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 05:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny how you call yourself 'neutral'. You didn't mention your discussion on me on Personal attack intervention noticeboard, where attacking me seemed to have become a full fledged Wikiproject. Neither did Tom, but I've already had my quarrels with him. You didn't mention that you filed an ANI entry against me. And somebody explain why immadiately after that entry, Jeffrey here 'protects' my user page to block me from editing it? His Excellency... 06:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * FTR, I came to your page through the Unblock tag where I was patrolling requests, not through AN. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 07:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

H.E. Just wondering why do you do personal attacks? --Aminz 07:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked
Based on discussions in several places (AN and PAIN included), I have indefinitely blocked you for constant, blatant personal attacks and disruption, even while blocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 07:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hi H.E.,

Since your talk page was protected, I am leaving my message here. I would like to thank you for the link to the Washington Times article on Bat Ye'or's lecture at Georgetown you provided a while ago. I think, hopefully it is establishing the fact that renowned scholars such as John Esposito criticize Bat Ye'or for lacking academic credentials. I am sure I can find some "reliable" links on Lewis's criticism of Bat Ye'or. But I think there may be no need for it. She is too polemical as Lewis says. --Aminz 07:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Aminz. I've read the Dhimmi talk page, and I see Pecher and Merbow making the arguement that Bat Ye'or shouldn't be excluded from being taken as a reliable source because 'no panel of scholars' condemned her. If you search "Bat Ye'or" on yahoo, the first 3 pages of hits consists of nothing but polemicist advocacy websites, Jihadwatch.com/Dhimmiwatch/DanielPipes.org and the such. The ONLY academically noteworthy and credible scholars to have commented on her have all criticized her. Bernard Lewis, John Espozito, etc. Other than those two, nobody else knows of her existence. I knew nothing of her except the "Dhimmitude" word until this article. She's only popular with the Islam-bashers, and really isn't noteworthy outside of the circle of Anti-Muslim advocacy activists and frustrated Israelis (frustrated with good reason, admittedly). To use a criticism by a panel (and how often to scholars meet to put down an author anyway?) criteria to judge adequacy as a source isn't a good one. I haven't heard a good arguement that explains why Bat Ye'or, who lacks any education or training in the field she rants on about, should be included as a 'reliable source' while Karen Armstrong has been forbidden. I thought Merzbow's comment that we can't judge our sources was silly. What do editors do if not make judgements? His Excellency... 15:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

unblock
The 1 week block that was applied on me was supposed to have expired. Somehow the block got extended via autoblock when I clicked on a red link (an empty talk page). Please unblock me as the 1 week block should have expired. His Excellency... 01:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You were actually blocked for 180 hours, which is 7.5 days. You should be unblocked now, though you werent at the time you made this request.  If you are autoblocked, though, you have to post the exact message, like it says on the block page, otherwise we can't help.  Mango juice talk 03:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I know the note says '180 hrs", but on previous check, the block list stated it would expire on July 5th, 6 pm.

It's still blocked. His Excellency... 03:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How about now? I undid the remaining autoblocks, I think. Bishonen | talk 04:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC).


 * Apparently new autoblocks spring into action every time you try to see if you can edit, it's surreal. I think I've undone them all now. Please try. I'll be away for half an hour now, but if you still can't edit after that, I'd better ask for help on IRC. Bishonen | talk 11:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC).


 * Apparently the unblock thingamijit chokes when the id being unblocked has spaces instead of underscores. Thanks alot though..And I appreciate you addressing the other stuff too. I've avoided responding on your talk page because of the additional trouble that would invite to it from others. I do appreciate your efforts though. His Excellency... 16:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)