User talk:Pecher/Archive 3

Thank you
Efforts to alter the Robert Spencer article from the "consensus" version seem to have gone into high gear again. I wanted to thank you for your prompt reversions there in recent days, and also ask for your continued help. Dy-no-miite 17:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Some people aren't kind, but ohers -- like you -- are. A real mitzvah. It is truly appreciated. Zora 15:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Case: Battle of Elasa

 * You have indicated that you are willing to accept an assignment as a mediator. I have assigned this case to you. If you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request, delegate it to someone else and update the case list accordingly. Before you begin the mediation please read the suggestions for mediators. You can also review earlier mediation cases to get an understanding for possible procedures.
 * I hope you didn't mind the reference to RTFM, please interpret this as "read the fine manual" ;-) --Fasten 19:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Apostasy in Islam
Thanks for letting me know. I hope this does not mean that you want to revert the article. --Aminz 10:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I am going to sleep(It is 3AM here). I'll get back to discussion tomorrow. --Aminz 10:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You accused me of being hypocrisy. Now, let me prove why "Your hypocrisy is astonishing" and then will respond back to your accusation:


 * "Your hypocrisy is astonishing" because
 * You look at different edits with different standards. When you want to remove some stuff you accuse others of doing "original research", "unreliable source",... But when you don't apply the same when you like some stuff. Not doing "original research" and having "reliable source" is important but one should not apply these selectively.
 * I reject your accusation because
 * I believe the most straightforward reading of my comment does not imply what you concluded. You said I have reached 3RR limit and I thanked you and said I "hope" you don't want to revert the article. So what? You could and reverted my edit. The reason I was reverting your edits was that I asked you to discuss the changes on the talk page first. --Aminz 00:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an templates
Glad you like the new ones.Now we have four display options as follows:

009:010

009:010-015

I'll get back to the Hadith templates sometime today.Timothy Usher 17:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

new evidence about the Mufti colaboration with the Nazis
and intentions to genocide the jews in Israel/Palestine:

http://www.ww4report.com/node/1845

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=mallmann+germany+mufti

Islamic scripture template news
1) Template:Quran-usc has been altered in two respects:
 * a) it’s no longer required to input three digits - this is automated thanks to joturner.
 * b) the template no longer includes “Qur’an” in the bluelighted display.Include it or not according to context.
 * c) thus the “-num” variants are redundant and should not be used.

2) The “range display” problem is still not solved - more information coming soon.

3) Template:Bukhari-usc is operative, with three variables (volume, book, hadith).

Timothy Usher 07:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Luther and Antisemitism
Hi Pecher, thought you might find this interesting.I appreciate your contributions to the Luther/Antisemitism related pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies_%28Martin_Luther%29#Luther.27s_Hatred_of_Jews_as_a_Race Doright 04:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an article
Hi Pecher,

For a variety of reasons discussed at length on the talk page, I editted:

"Muslims believe that the Qur'ān is the literal word of God (Arabic Allah) and the culmination of God's revelation to mankind as revealed to Muhammad, the final prophet of humanity, over a period of twenty-three years through the angel Jibril (Gabriel)."

to:

Muslims believe that the Qur'ān is the literal word of God (Arabic Allah) as revealed to Muhammad over a period of twenty-three years through the angel Gabriel (Jibril)."

It's been reverted.Wonder if you'd be willing to take a look at this, if you have time?Timothy Usher 07:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's more about style and tone.And the phrase, "...Muhammad, the final prophet of humanity..." 1) This has nothing to do with the Qur'an (in fact it's not even stated in the Qur'an) 2) one effect of such complex clauses is to disconnect big statements like this from the qualifier "Muslims believe..."There simply should not be strings of this sort.Timothy Usher 08:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Are you sure? I think I have only reverted twice. --Aminz 08:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw that; I'm too involved in the issue myself to unblock him. Maybe an uninvolved admin will take it up. Tom Harrison Talk 21:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen Cyde around those articles. It's basically up to the individual admin to decide how involved is too involved. Tom Harrison Talk 22:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Image is OK
Thank you for your concern about the Jewish image.

It is however free under official Iranian copyright law, as has been stipulated on the tag accompanying it. It is from the Iranian media archives, which I have access to.--Zereshk 15:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have already told you, the images are from Iranian media archives, hard copy, and I have provided sourcing information as to where to obtain them.


 * I am reporting your actions to relevant admins, inorder to ensure their protection.--Zereshk 15:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You should see this Use of negationists sites
This user Ceedjee uses material from a negationists site founded by a neo nazi ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_revisionism#Institute_for_Historical_Review

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discuter:Amin_al-Husseini

You can ask Zora for an indipendent translation

Franckly I am afraid of a few things that I see here on Wikipedia, specially on the french side

Salvation in Judaism
Pecher, please have a look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation#Judaism

The original section was created by me. After a long time, Someone has expanded it (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salvation&diff=51265398&oldid=51264179 ). Can you please have a look at it and check for its accuracy.

Also, please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin#Jewish_views_of_sin

Long time ago that I saw that article, it was written by christians editors I think so I added some Jewish POV to it(here are a few of them):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sin&diff=prev&oldid=35654592 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sin&diff=next&oldid=35657327 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sin&diff=44784532&oldid=44634679

Please have a look at this as well since I haven't seen any Jew picking this article as well. Thanks, -- Aminz 03:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam / Islam and anti-Semitism
I made the section: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Islam&diff=51335126&oldid=51315515

Can you please help writing a summary there. I think it should be more concerned about the Islam itself rather than what Muslims have done. But if you could somehow add the Maimonides, it would begood. Thanks --Aminz 08:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Said
The source is Washbrook's Essay, which I have cited, although you will find similar observations in Bernard Lewis. However, you're probably right, and this should go into the criticism section. As you may have guessed I am not a fan of Said's ideas (as opposed to his politics, with which I have a lot of sympathy) but I did give due warning before expanding the section! Someone who works in literayr theory or cultural studies ought to expand the 'support & influence' section to make it more balanced. Sikandarji 13:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3246565,00.html Zeq 19:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI 2
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pell-challenges-islam--o-ye-of-little-tolerant-faith/2006/05/04/1146335872951.html

Thanks
Pecher, thank you very much for your concern about the recent unjustified block of my user account.I will be very interested to see what Sean Black has to say about all this.Anyhow, thanks.Timothy Usher 23:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Israel
Pecher, it is obvious that you are a pro-Israeli. But how do you justify hiding facts? Don't you think that telling half the truth is lying? If you think that you are protecting Israel this way, then you are wrong. Hiding important information does not serve the case of any country. It just leads to culmination of lies and then the fall begins. The first step in solving a problem is by admitting that there is a problem. be honest with yourself and tell the truth even if it costs you your life Ali Ibn Abi Taleb.

Removing merge tags
How do the merge tags disrupt the article? They serve the purpose of alerting people to the discussion.I'm sorry, but you're going to have to come up with a better reason. Fishhead64 20:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad
Pecher, that line in the popular traditions section was italicized because it's basically a subtitle. I reformatted the article and now three sections have italicized subtitles. There's no nefarious Islamic scheme in the italicizing, really. Zora 19:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That was a joke -- I'm sorry it fell flat. It's just that I don't understand WHY you object to the italics. That struck me as a good way out of having enormously long section titles, and other editors seemed to like that solution too. Zora 20:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

al-Mawardi
Sorry, can't help there. I've gradually acquired a library on early Islam, but I don't have much on later developments. A good source, if you can get access to one, would be The Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd edition. You can buy it on DVD for only $300! If you have access to a library that has one, you might find an article on al-Mawardi; the article would have references, which would take you further. Zora 20:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Transjordan
Which part of the Jewish state did Transjordan invade on 15 May? --Ian Pitchford 12:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know Transjordan didn't attack the areas allocated to the Jewish State at all, but if there's evidence to the contrary I'd like to read about it. I'm no expert on this war - history is just a hobby. The agreement between the Yishuv and Transjordan was that they would divide Palestine between them. The British government approved of this arrangement. There was plenty of scope for confusion and conflict between the parties, but by and large the deal held. The other states did intervene, but with different goals. Syria feared invasion by Transjordan and moved troops into the border area as a buffer; Egypt wanted to prevent Abdullah's expansion; the Saudis backed the anti-Hashemite block; Transjordan prevented serious intervention by the forces of Hashemite Iraq; Lebanon was barely involved at all etc, etc. Politically and militarily it was a very complex situation. --Ian Pitchford 13:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jerusalem wasn't allocated to the Jewish State and the Arab Legion's actions were in response to a bid by the Yishuv to capture the city. However, as I understand it, the British government still ordered the officers to abandon their posts owing to this incursion by the Legion into territory that wasn't allocated to the Palestinian Arab State. --Ian Pitchford 14:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's partly right, but Jerusalem was in the international zone and not part of the territory allocated to the Jewish State. The fighting was the result of the fact that the area wasn't covered by the agreement between the Yishuv and Transjordan. Abdullah stopped fighting as soon as he got what he wanted (and expected) and three times he handed over territory Israel without a fight. Ben-Gurion in turn prevented the IDF from attacking the Arab Legion, even where it was conspicuously vulnerable. As the historians say Israel and Transjordan weren't exactly collaborators, but they colluded and were "the best of enemies". Abdullah had been on the Yishuv's payroll for 30 years and resumed contact with them as soon as he could - before the war even ended. The other Arab states knew exactly what was going on and weren't going to permit Abdullah's land grab in Palestine, hence much of the struggle was really between the pro-Hashemite and the anti-Hashemite factions rather than between Israel and the Arab states and the Palestinians themselves were barely considered at all. Egypt blocked arms shipments to Transjordan and both Syria and Israel colluded with the ALA to keep them out of the conflict. The idea that five Arab states attacked Israel is just so much fiction, but you can hardly summarize this material in a few sentences. Much of this stuff isn't general knowledge, but is covered in most detailed histories of the period. --Ian Pitchford 15:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's from a whole range of sources. I will add them to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article. --Ian Pitchford 17:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility
A comment like can easily be misunderstood as a personal attack. It might be better to limit your remarks on the talk pages to article content, not other users. Tom Harrison Talk 18:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Editor / User Page Review
Hey Pecher – You opposed my last RfA in March on rationale I believe may have been related to my user page. In the time since then, I have changed my page to be more universalist (which still conforms with my personal beliefs) and removed the majority of information regarding my conversion to Islam in favor of a section on my philosophy (as well as yours if you desire). Now, I'm looking for your feedback on what you think of the redesign of the page and whether it is sufficient in quelling the March controversy over the page as well as solving the issue about possible inability to maintain a neutral point of view, especially in religion-related articles. For what it's worth, the reason I kept a condensed version of the timeline was because there were, and still are, many people who find it interesting instead of a form of proselytization. Many people have also given me positive feedback on my talk page regarding the look of the page. I personally believe that it is okay to insert individuality onto user pages, especially if it still promotes a sense of community. That is what I was going for with this current version of my user page.

Please make comments regarding the user page on my editor review page. Thanks in advance. joturn e r 14:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Khaybar
You realize that if we were sitting in a bar/coffeehouse I would probably buy you a round over this discussion? No hard feelings - all in the interest of academic excellence etc.Bridesmill 22:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You may also wish to take a look at Battle of the Trench.Timothy Usher 02:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

True Torah Jews
Hi, I posted a defense of the article True Torah Jews, I would like to ask you to be so kind and read it, and than rethink your position on deletion.

Bloger 00:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marielleh

Blocked for 24 hours
Regarding your recent edits to Dhimmi: You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Keep in mind as well that this rule does not mean that you are ENTITLED to 3 reverts a day, and you may be blocked for making fewer than four reverts if it becomes obvious that you are revert warring rather than discussing changes. --InShaneee 00:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, are you back?Timothy Usher 09:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Joturner
Hello Pecher!

Thought you might be interested to have a look at. --Aminz 08:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Simon Wiesenthal Center
Please restore my edits on Persian Jews. You are wrong, here is the letter from Simon Wiesenthal Center, look who they are calling their source:

"According to an editorial that was to appear in Friday’s National Post"

--ManiF 20:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Pecher. I have contacted Meir Javedanfar, and he's absolutely sure that this story is false. National Post may retract the whole storyvery soon. --ManiF 21:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The whole story is based on Amir Taheri's editorial and subsequent comments from two expatriate Iranians. As I said, the National Post is fully investigating the whole issue and and may even retract or withdraw the story soon. Stay tuned. --ManiF 21:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A direct inquiry to the paper, the whole thing will be sorted out in the next day or so. --ManiF 21:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought I should let you know that the original National Post story is "no longer available" and the National Post has just confirmed that "Experts say report of badges for Jews in Iran is untrue" --ManiF 01:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Historic Muslim respect for Jews
I asked for help regarding the issue on Islam and anti-Semitism, and I was told (see btoom of section) to talk to you on your talk page. Hopefully you won't mind.

The reason I feel the section "Historic Muslim respect for Jews" belonged is because the article in its intro. says: "The positions of the various branches of Islam on anti-Semitism and Jews". Therefore how Muslim treat Jews, is of paramount importance in the theme of anti-Semitism. Hope you will understand. Pls. respond below. Bless sins 18:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have posted a response on my talk page. Let's keep the discussion on ONE page to avoid confusion.Bless sins 18:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have posted a response on my talk page. Bless sins 19:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_mediation&diff=54486375&oldid=54481510. Feel free to complete the request Zeq 06:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADhimmi&diff=55252272&oldid=55223005

Banu Qurayza
Look again. I removed your name from the header. The reason I restored the quote was because I wanted to debunk it. It's generally poor form to delete comments in talk section, if you are unfairly singled out in the header, just change the header. The anon was bringing up points that Muslim apologists often raise in justifying the murder of the Banu Qurayza so it is important to counter them and demonstrate their absurdity. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Islam
What do u mean please look at the talk page... « ₪ M ÿ š † í c ₪ » (T) 08:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please dont blindly revert the template just because you dont agree to it..There is clear consensus on the talk page.. JUST OPEN YOUR EYES WIDE AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT   « ₪ M ÿ š † í c ₪ »  (T) 08:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you look at the vote count? « ₪ M ÿ š † í c ₪ » (T) 08:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay who are these editors? Ask them to vote in the Consesnsus section started by one of you.. « ₪ M ÿ š † í c ₪ » (T) 08:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"Islamic" barnstar award
Any opinion on this?

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild

Timothy Usher

I was very surprized by this vote
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FPhilip_Sandifer&diff=55333677&oldid=55332500

Zeq 10:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that itis first of all intersting. especially that it invlove wikipedia I did not see that it should be "deleted" - this refelct badly on wiki. Since it made the new spapers it seem notable enough. (to me at least) Zeq 16:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lewishussein.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lewishussein.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot.For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/718674.html

Israeli apartheid

 * 13:09, 29 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Israeli apartheid (→Usage - neither is informationclearinghouse.info)
 * 13:08, 29 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Israeli apartheid (→Analogy - globalexchange.org is not a reliable source)
 * 13:08, 29 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Israeli apartheid (→Analogy - globalexchange.org is not a reliable source)

They may or may not be reliable sources for facts about Israel. They are, however, reliable sources for what proponents of the term "Israeli apartheid" are arguing. Homey 13:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3256534,00.html

Re: Tabriz
Здравствуйте. Пока комментировать сложно. Протест там зреет давно, и нужен был только повод, чтобы он выплеснулся на улицы. Основная проблема там в том, что азербайджанцам отказывают в праве на национальную идентичность, в праве на развитие своего языка и культуры. Вы это можете видеть даже здесь, в обсуждении статей Иранский Азербайджан и Азербайджанцы. Некоторые иранские участники настаивают на том, что азербайджанцы – один из иранских этносов, хотя общеизвестно, что азербайджанцы – тюркский народ. Можно представить, что происходит в самом Иране. Конфликт видимо на этой почве, люди требуют защиты своих культурных прав. Grandmaster 18:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm VERY UPSET
Pecher, have you even read the Aisha article? There's a long section, with many cites, presenting the viewpoint of those who disagree with the "six years old" story. There's even a reference to a book about the reasons the story might have been invented. AARGH! Zora 21:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Dismissing one side of dispute because you don't like the arguments, and insisting that there is in fact no dispute is NOT OK. Asking two people for backup is not a crime, and if you were to accuse me on the basis of those communications, you would be laughed out of whatever WP forum you decided to approach. Zora 21:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Pecher, I would consider the past president of ISNA (large US Muslim oranization, representing a great many Muslims) as being a reliable source. I would consider Spellberg's book a reliable source. There are academics, and Muslims, who don't accept the hadith. You can't just dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as "unreliable." Zora 22:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeq
As to Zeq, another admin has now banned him from the article in question after an Arbitrator put the issue to Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement (shortcut WP:AE).Homey 03:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the honorable Sean Black.Timothy Usher 04:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious_editing_by_User:Humus_sapiens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sean_Black#May_I_suggest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sean_Black#Policy__WP:NOT

Please try to remain civil

 * Faisal, you haven't made a single contribution to the article using reliable sources. Your talk page edits consist mainly of declarations of edit war, attempts to recruit other people to be on your side in the edit war that you are waging, and attacks aimed at those who disagree with you. From this evidence, I cannot see any value in your contributions to Wikipedia. Pecher Talk 08:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!I am certainly not taking sides on the issue this comment is regarding, but this statement could have been worded in a more civil manner. &mdash;  ßott e  siηi  (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think the other side has been particularly civil either. But that does not mean that you should be rude in return. There is always a way to take the high road. &mdash;  ßott e  siηi  (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Mu'tah
More unsourced drivel...Timothy Usher 07:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon has been reported at WP:ANI/3RR.Timothy Usher 09:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon's range has been blocked after my report.Please restore the stub - though I don't suppose I'd be blocked for undoing what is itself a violation, I'd rather not risk it.Timothy Usher 09:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The user has returned under the appropriate username User:Falso.Timothy Usher 18:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

tagging is useless
don't bother tagging. Zeq 08:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR on User:Zora
Nice, really nice. You may have been technically right in having reported User:Zora for 3RR on Muhammad but I'll tell you what, you're not going to be winning much in the way of good faith "points" (karma) which you yourself may need in the future when it comes to garnering support from other editors in your own editing. Netscott 08:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with any conflict between you two previously but I do know that your edits relative to Aisha's age on Muhammad struck me as done with less than good faith particularly as the marriage age controversy section on the article about her is so massive and well developed. In your version of Muhammad there was no allowance for that controversy, hello?Netscott 09:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI
http://www.netpano.com/newsdetail.asp?NewsID=745

Waiting for you reply at my Talk page
Pecher I am back from my trip but you have not reply to this. Now what should I do. Put the above quote (and many other like it) in the Jizya article or wait for your reply. --- Faisal 16:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay then I will take the issue to mediation cabal as well as to the member of association of member's advocates. I do not know why cannot we have any agreement an easy way. See you then. --- Faisal 17:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

How Come?
How come you Rv my edits without discussing them at the page discussion? --Thameen 17:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My "company"
Pecher, I'm walking a tight-rope in the Islam-related articles. I'm not a Muslim. If I have a dog in the fight, it's the Western academic POV. However, I believe in the Wikipedia core values of fairness and NPOV. That means that I'm sometimes on the side of the non-Muslims, busy rooting out hagiography and PBUHs, and sometimes on the side of the Muslims, reverting Muslim-bashing. I get people from both "sides" supporting me, including people who would otherwise bitterly disagree with me, and people from both "sides" throwing brickbats at em. The people I would like to please are the ones who've shown intelligence, sincerity, and tolerance; the opinions of the others are of much less weight. So if you think you can get me to reconsider my opinions by making denigrating comments about those who "sometimes" support me, I don't think you'll succeed. Recommend a recent, exciting academic publication and you might sway me. Frex, I am rilly rilly looking forward to some word from Gerd R. Puin on his investigation of the Sana'a manuscripts. I'd be willing to change all my opinions about the composition of the Qur'an given enough compelling evidence. Zora 18:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Moshe
As I told Timothy (and as he conceded) I did not violate policy because I did not obtain an advantage in a content dispute by blocking Moshe. In fact, I left the article at Moshe's last edit and I made no change to the talk page other than reverting it to the state it had been prior to his altering my comments.

As for Zeq (who I assume is the other incident you are referring to), he was, as you know, under probation and I contacted the ArbComm before blocking him to make sure I was on solid ground and only blocked him after receiving an email back from Fred Bauder. Nevertheless, I lifted the block after a few mintues. The next day another editor banned Zeq from the article he was editing in a problematic way. Since then, he has been blocked for 48 hours by yet another editor for vote-stacking. Homey 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Moshe
You are parsing the text. The exact wording is: "Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute."

No advantage was gained in a content dispute.Homey 12:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You are taking the second sentence in isolation. I am taking it in context in conjuction with the first. Certainly many admins have done the same in the past. However, in future I will bring the matter to an admin regardless of whether or not there would be an advantage in a content dispute just so there's no perception of a violation. Homey 12:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Zeq_.28June_5.29 Zeq 20:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3258963,00.html

good web site to follow.

Funny trolling
A lot funnier than last night's vandalism of my (again s-protected) user talk page, at least.Timothy Usher 23:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Email
Check it

Surena
Why did you add vandalism warning templates to the user's talk page? BhaiSaab talk 23:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * They were in good faith, and therefore not vandalism. See What vandalism is not. BhaiSaab talk 19:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-Muslims in Mosques
Please be aware of my changes to your latest edits. Thank you. BhaiSaab talk 00:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you had taken the time to actually read it, you would know it's not original research. BhaiSaab talk 17:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I responded to your last post in Talk:Mosque. BhaiSaab talk 20:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Responded again. BhaiSaab talk 20:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I sent you an email. BhaiSaab talk 21:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not realized
I did not do he did it with Moshe as well. He just explained to Tonay Siaway how he would never repeat this mistake. laughable. Zeq 12:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Explain
Can you please explain This edit, considering the sources regarding this are explictly present in the artcile. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
I think you know better than to remove a link to a disambiguation page. Son't do it again.Homey 17:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any justification for removing a disambig link other than POV political ones? If not then you have no grounds on which to remove the link. Homey 18:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:DAB
Actually, it doesn't. See Talk:Apartheid (disambiguation) where a neutral editor with a background in disambiguation page policy is mediating. In any case, your argument would have been appropriate for the AFD page but as the article has survived...Homey

Disambiguation link at History of South Africa in the apartheid era
Hello Pecher,

The removal of the disambiguation link at History of South Africa in the apartheid era has been brought up at the Administrator's noticeboard, and I wanted to give you some background information on disambiguation pages in hopes that you would understand the situation.Please pardon if you already know some of the information.

When multiple pages have the same name, a disambiguation page is created in order to direct readers to the correct article they are looking for.Many times with disambiguation pages, there is one article that is determined to be the "primary topic"; that is, it is by far the most common article to be searched for under that term.When this happens, the primary topic takes the initial name, and then links to the disambiguation page.For example, in the case of Tree, Tree is the primary topic, and it links to Tree (disambiguation) at the top of it's page.

The case of History of South Africa in the apartheid era and Apartheid (disambiguation) is very similar.Since Apartheid redirects to History of South Africa in the apartheid era, it is considered the primary topic of all pages named "Apartheid", and a link to the disambiguation page Apartheid (disambiguation) is therefore appropriate at the top of the page, and should not be removed.

As I know you are aware of, there is currently discussion going on regarding the assorted apartheid pages.If you have any opinions, please participate in the discussions in the appropriate place.However, removing a needed disambiguation link is not the way to go about that.Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions. -- Nataly a 19:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

marriage
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3260578,00.html

complete lack of civility:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=57700783&oldid=57700405

3RR
Pecher, your 3RR comlaint is specious and absurd. If you apply a block yourself I will file a complaint against you for abuse. Homey 12:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, I suggest you give this excellent advice to Timothy Usher, Humus, Moshe, Jay and others.

Isn't removing an original research tag considered vandalism? Have you gone and tried to discipline the editor who did that? Perhaps you should lest anyone think you are beign selective in your actions. Homey 12:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of tags usually results in a warning to the person removing them. When is the removal of an original research tag permitted?Homey 13:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Goitein article
No, I don't know of another source.However, a pdf is available here temporarily.Gimmetrow 13:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Hinduism
I saw your comment in Talk:Criticism of Hinduism. Its in fact absolutely true and not only this article but nearly all of the articles dealing with Hinduism (even the Hinduism article itself who has a FA status ?) lack references and have many unverified self-sourced claims. We better do something about it. Amir85 18:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well my knowledge about Hinduism is alright, not great, as I live in India for 3 years and carried out a lot of reseach about Hinduism but again I don't see myself in a position to edit Hinduism-related article personally. However as I said before most of the articles dealing with Hinduism lack references and have many unverified self-sourced claims. In between take a look at Featured article removal candidates/Hinduism, where many of my concerns are explained by supporters of "removal". Amir85 11:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Be apprised
Be apprised of WP:AN.Timothy Usher 18:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zeq/apartheid_propeganda Zeq 20:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Not
Thanks for adding the missing word. I'm embarrassed at my carelessness! AnnH ♫ 23:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you look at this Talk:WP:RS discussion?
User Doright unilaterally inserted his preferred guideline into WP:RS as follows, replacing the one discussed on its talk page. I reverted once, and he has now reverted it. I'm backing off to prevent an edit war. I would appreciate it if you would comment on this. The text he has inserted says:

Electronic mailing list archives

Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If such a list is moderated by a reliable entity or hosted by a reputable organization (e.g., H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online, that confirms the identity of its contributors, they may not suffer from the above stated identity problem of Usenet. Therefore, they can be cited and carry the authority (if any) of the person being cited. As with all sources, it is incumbent upon the editor to ensure that the person being cited is notable. All citations must include the name of the person being cited, the message subject line, the archive or forum name and date. --CTSWyneken 20:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)