User talk:Proabivouac/Archive 3

Thanks for rv
Thanks for rv Arrow's edit. It looks like this guy might have some chip on his sholder. - Anon. --67.175.242.13 09:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm the one with a chip on my shoulder. Arrow740 07:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd refrain from that characterization; even were it true, he'd hardly be the only one in this space. The point is information about non-Dhimmis in Islam is every bit as relevant as information about treatment of non-Dhimmis outside of Islam - that is, it's not. Let's all try to be honest and even-handed about this: no wandering off-topic to make a point.Proabivouac 09:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Isaac
I have candidated this article for "GA" status. Any comment on that would be appreciated. --Aminz 11:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Depictions_of_Muhammad
Talk:Depictions_of_Muhammad is my solution. Well, it's not really a solution, but it's the start of being able to write a coherent article. Trying to write a balanced article weighing both calligraphy and physical images is quite hard to do. Writing an article with both of those and properly weighing poetry is even harder. I don't think any of us are remotely qualified to do it. I'd rather not get into arguments about it so I think we should have an article (under this title or another) for just images because then I/we will not have to worry about properly representing other traditions such as poetry which is much less tangible but incredibly important and would need expertise. So, Zora's (?) intro was pretty decent but we will not be able to write a good article about so many topics. gren グレン 13:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've Had It
Pro, as I look up to you on Wikipedia, I feel you are the first person I should go to in regards to the ongoing problem of VirtualEye. Not only has he breached WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:AGF, WP:NOT and WP:NPA multiple times, it has become fairly obvious that he is not contributing to Wikipedia for any of the right reasons. I would like to point out specific breaches where VirtualEye had been previously warned against these types of edits:

His mass-spam of Answering-christianity.org in general           

Those are some older references. More recently, a pattern of genuine incivility, WP:POINT making and PA's has become common: has popped up;     (note the use of the word "dumbshit")    

Between all of this, I have offered multiple times to help him out with editing. I even went as far as to offer a cup of tea and a sit down. It has become clear to me that VirtualEye is:
 * Acting in bad faith
 * Making points
 * Deliberately disregarding warnings
 * Using sockpuppets to evade blocks

I have concluded that VirtualEye might be a troll. This brings up a tricky issue, however, because claims on my part would convey me as a radical, POV-obsessed zealot, though I truly believe that VirtualEye is deliberately trying to disobey everything presented to him. I am wondering who I should convey my concerns to, where I should do this, how I would go about doing this, and what could be expected as a result. I appreciate the help you have given me in the past, Pro, and I hope you may help me with this issue. Please respond on my talk page if you would be willing to provide me with some input. I think VirtualEye could be a great editor with his knowledge, but right now is using it in an inappropriate manner. Thanks, --Hojimachongtalk 05:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. What do you think about Essjay's situation?
 * Apologies, Hojimachong (and thank you for your kind words), I probably won't have time to look at VirtualEye tonight. I am most concerned with the Essjay situation at this point. I have not too much to add beyond what I've stated and endorsed there (and see that you've been active there, too. Proabivouac 08:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to suspect VirtualEye may be more than he seems. Pro's initial incorrect suspicion may have had some truth to it. What's the situation with Essjay? Arrow740 08:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Arrow. See Requests for comment/Essjay.Proabivouac 08:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

On Dhimmi, please join the talk page. --Aminz 03:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * He's at it again. --Hojimachongtalk 06:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Funnypop12
I've removed the AIV report for this individual as it seems to be less than a clear cut case. It sounds like it should go to WP:ANI for discussion and mediation, or at the very least to report it for a 3RR warning. But simple vandalism, this is not. -- Merope 08:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the Quran
I know you don't really care about that article, but there are some issues that could use an outside comment. Arrow740 09:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone is revert warring with anons again. is currently blocked, and as soon as he was blocked  stepped in. Arrow740 05:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just got your message; it seems to have already been reverted. The second anon may well be he who stopped by this page for a friendly chat a few weeks back.Proabivouac 05:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The admins don't seem to care about him, could you take some action? Arrow740 19:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wheel war
I'm not sure what to do about your edit here. I came back from the weekend to find the edit war going on. Really, I think that Dev920 started the whole thing with this edit. I am perfectly happy to abide by the results of the poll, but think that leaving that section off pensing the resolution of the poll rewards her agressive behaviour. --evrik (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw the discussion on ANI and was convinced. Regardless of how this is ultimately resolved, I advise you that, to an outsider, it looks rather silly for you and South Philly to keep yourself listed as coordinator through edit-warring.Proabivouac 18:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole thing is silly in my opinion. --evrik (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is very silly. Maybe if you start listening to everyone else in the WikiProject it'll stop being so silly. Consensus is usually quite sensible. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure, Proabivouac, that you have read the page. You will know then, that Southphilly's reverts here and here are against consensus. Maybe you can do something? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Could I ask you to re-enfranchise Wikipedians to vote in the poll as well? If you read the comments below and on the AN/I, it seems to me to be a clear consensus that it should be an open vote. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
Given my horrendous track record with VirtualEye, I would appreciate it if you could post the following at Suspected sock puppets;

User:VirtualEye

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

Proabivouac 07:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Report submission by:

has been repeatedly blocked for incivility and personal attacks. At least one of the suspected socks was created during the third block of VirtualEye. The socks came straight to the mediation at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. Perhaps the most incriminating bit is the edit summary; For a while, filled every edit summary with the letter "a". When began to edit, he also filled edit summary fields with the character "a". The ensuing "discussion" can be found on 's talk page.
 * Evidence


 * The sockpuppet page is a total waste of time: even if it weren't for the backlog, admins there have no more insight or willingness to act then do the ones watching VE now. I'll request a checkuser tomorrow, and maybe post on ANI. I suppose a post to sockpuppets can't hurt, but I'd like to add a few more points (such as the ludicrousness of Jesus Fan claiming to be an published American writer) and I'm too tired to do it just about now. Though you're certainly free to do so; I don't see that your interactions with him should be held against you.Proabivouac 07:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Discouraged
Proabivouac, traditionally Wikipedia editors have been given much leeway in formulating their online personas. There is really an embracing of people being able to assume another identity via pseudonyms. In this whole Essjay scandal there would not have been such an outcry from the community about the fake credentials if they had never been used to trump content disputes/ convince real life professor(s) to have faith in Wikipedia's content/ lend weight to a real world and significant article about Wikipedia. I agree with you that direct and to the point wording should be instituted but the reality is that the community hasn't expressed itself about such wording. In lieu of the community's view being concretely known, the best we can do is extrapolate a "discouraged" stance from the community response to this scandal. Even User:Jimbo Wales who has arguably gotten the most directly burned out of this used the word "discourage". 09:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that when you start to say that you incline editors to start cyberstalking to try and verify given details on a user's page. How does one go about enforcing such a policy? The reality is that it is self-evident that people are not to be making up false credentials like that to gain advantageous positions relative to all areas of Wikipedia both on and off the wiki. This is why Essjay was asked to resign and not simply admonished despite there being no official policy in place about how to proceed when something like that would happen. 09:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Come on, he had to have known that what he was doing was very wrong. Any fool would know this (particularly in regards to content editing discussions and the letter to the professor). 09:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said before I agree with you but what I don't see yet is the evidence of community agreeance about codifying what you are saying. 09:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional image
Proabivouac, I'm not happy about additional images of Muhammad appearing on the Muhammad article particularly because adding more images will likely exacerbate the difficulties editors are experiencing as we arrive at a consensus version of the article. That said I have done the technical edits necessary to allow other editors like yourself to place the image where they want in the article. Please be aware that I likely will remove the image myself in the interests of reducing conflict surrounding this contentious period of editing there. 16:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in
FYI: The deleted discussion consisted of Ian asking me what I did for a living. I responded that I was a professor at a community college. Technically, this is something of an overstatement: I am an instructor at a community college: the rank of professor is attained after jumping through a couple of hoops. However, in a practical sense, my duties are identical to that of any other full-time faculty member at the community college and many students call me "professor" all the same. It's a technical distinction without a difference. --ScienceApologist 11:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are indeed correct about some people being a bit proprietary about their rank-promotion titles. However, this is thankfully not the case at my institution (except when you submit a resume) and so I'm just used to using the terms interchangably. --ScienceApologist 11:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

About users removing warnings
As much as I disagree, the community has decided it is acceptable for users to remove warnings from their page, such as ALM did. I think this is a silly thing to allow, but the community disagrees. You can however take the removal of a warning as a sign that the user has read it. I have a tool that can create a full archive(including items blanked) of a talk page. A full archive of User talk:ALM scientist has been generated here User_talk:HighInBC/Temporary_page_indexes/User_talk:ALM_scientist. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Robbie31
Hi, Can you please post what you can gather from Robbie31 and Essjay on Jimbo talk page section titled Essjay Goon Squad .... Thanks, 74.112.107.145 06:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam and slavery revised lead proposal
Dear Proa, as an interested editor would you please offer your opinion at article 62 on the talk page re this proposal. DavidYork71 08:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No clue
Maybe User:Aatif.haider, User:Bbarnett's sparring partner? You know I really wish you'd jump on board with the "Original Compromise found". This thing is literally on the verge of ending... I'd like to see User:ALM scientist come back and I suspect that if that solution goes though he will. Thanks. 05:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, he's been a rather contributory editor. Sure his religious convictions seemed to get the best of him but I honesty had the impression that his heart was in the right spot. You've got to realize that there are editors who go around smearing Islam everyday on Wikipedia, I see this myself. For someone who holds Islam as his deen that must be very challenging to have to contend with particularly as there is not a whole lot of Muslim editors on Wikipedia. Grenavitar described this smear group as an "anti-Muslim brigade" and I'll tell you what, he was 100% right on. When I sense such an ant-Muslimness in an editor I try to distance myself from them. I haven't gotten that impression from you but I can see how a Muslim person might. 06:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

VE
yeah, I'm pretty sick of it. Islam is a 24/7 religion... you can't take a "break" from it to edit Wikipedia neutrally. It's inherently clear that the only real reason for the removal of pictures is a religious motivation, though many of the pro-deletionists try to find obscure guidelines to suit their needs. And yes, the sockpuppet page is quite the joke ;-). --Hojimachongtalk 22:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not aniconistic?
Don't even want to go down that route. That page is just a nightmare. Again I must reiterate to you that religious points of view (including aniconistic ones) on Wikipedia have no less standing than other points of view. I don't know if the page was created in good faith or not but I'll tell you what it does look extremely POINTed in view of all of the Muhammad image talk/mediation. Imho the timing on creating that page couldn't have been worse. Regardless, a page like that is soooo far out of accord with NPOV it is literally opposed to it. 04:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Blesssins
Just to clear your mind, I am not user:blessins or whatever. Next time, think before you say something :D

216.99.52.133 01:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, sure...if you're not Bless sins, you're certainly connected to him, your "or whatever" not withstanding. Would you like me to present the evidence? I thought I'd give you a chance to let up on your own; you'd be wise to take it.Proabivouac 01:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK sure, go ahead and present your so-called evidence if you are deluded enough to actually think you might have one if any.. :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.99.52.133 (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Speaking of concealed identities: Arrow740 07:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing concealed there.Proabivouac 07:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Contradictions
The criticisms are cited from The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. It is not an encyclopedic website either. --Aminz 08:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for that. I like penguins, so i found one on wikipedia that i liked. Im glad you liked the username! Crested Penguin 09:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on my page
Hello Proabivouac, I am not shia and I don't belive in "taqiyya"? I'm not even sure what it is from a Shia point of view, but I have studied it, and believe it is to lie about what religion you are to protect yourself. Anyway I am Sunni & don't believe in taqiyya, If you look at my edits you will see I have had a number or confrontations with zealous Shia, so I cannot be one see Sunni-Shia relations.Aaliyah Stevens 12:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

His opinion.
All I had ever seen of him was that comment and it looked fine in that context. At least I've seen much worse go past. Zazaban 14:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Trolling
It seems to be two people, and they troll several others on wikipedia as well. One used death threats to drive an editor off, another seems to have a homosexual fixaton on me, calling my home phone and putting up fake pages on social sites. A periodic annoyance. Stirling Newberry 17:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OR tag and talking
Thanks for looking at Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an. When you post a OR tag, you're supposed to start a discussion about it on the talk page so that the issue can be resolved. What do you think is OR? --Ephilei 17:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty much the entire thing. There are no secondary sources at all, and most of the material doesn't even refer to a primary source. It should probably be deleted, but AfD is such a hassle.Proabivouac 18:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad
Disruption is a two-way street. Perhaps you could post something to the Talk page of the article on why you think the material is contentious?Wjhonson 06:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This user has been reinstating that very same tendentious and misleading edit since October 2006 (I just researched it for the 3RR report) and has been reverted by dozens of editors. He has never made any serious attempt at discussion. I am continually amazed at the number of people who will leap to the defense of Wikipedia's most disruptive editors.Proabivouac 06:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It might help if you link to the 3RR notice. Muhammad gets a lot of edits, it's hard to see the disruption through the trees. Wjhonson 07:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac: i totally agree with wjohnson,that was my point all along.you definitely went overboard.besides,we are not citing "ridiculous (yet sourcable) things" as you said.st barnabas still has followers and his churches are still alive in u.s-there's one beside my place actually-regardless of what you may believe.if something doesn't make sense to you then know that it doesnt necessarily mean that it doesn't make sense to everyone as well.i don't know how religious you are but if you are christian then remember this:jesus(peace be upon him) was never hateful or rude as much as you are,you should be ashamed of yourself to be that biased.i would really appreciate if you can take users wjohnson or netscott as an exmaple on how to talk with others.hopefully US muslims can teach how to follow a loving person like jesus.its 3 am now i will hopefully attend to this later.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandia01 (talk • contribs)
 * I didn't bring up my religious beliefs, and neither should you. On my user talk, you will keep yours to yourself, or I will blank your messages as off-topic to building a neutral encyclopedia.Proabivouac 08:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac: 1)thank you for teaching me how to talk to others,i always value other's opinions and advices.i just hope that you can also direct your precious advices to yourself as well.hopefully that will make you more respectful to others as well,even those who don't necessarilly agree with you. 2)so what do you think about my entry and Aminz??or are we going to just keep on entering and deleting entries randomly forever??hope to get a constructive opinion from you this time... Grandia01

my question is not whether to include the gospel of barnabas entry or not.but rather how to write it.i agree with Proabivouac's point of mentioning ahmed deedat's analysis in his page but what of the gospel of barnabas thing??i also agree that it is definitely relevant to muhammad's page.regardless of what he or anyone else thinks.can someone please help me finalize this before i-or anyone else-enter it again??also,Proabivouac,please let me know of any recommended edits that you may want to include,i will listen and consider any opinions you may have.thank you

3RR
Sorry, but the rules have to be applied fairly to everyone. While warned for vandalism, he was never warned for 3RR, so he cannot in good faith be blocked without one warning. Hopefully he won't revert again and all our problems are solved. If he does, you already have the template filled out in the history, so it wasn't such a waste. Listen, if you were blocked for 3RR without a 3RR warning, how would you feel? . In terms of disruption, you may wish to file something at WP:ANI, or begin dispute resolution. Thanks. -- Avi 07:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then it sounds as if 3RR is the least of your worries. I would suggest the proper route is dispute resolution/request for comment. Catching him for 24 hours, or actually 8 for a first vio, is not going to help the article much, Proabivouac. Longer term solutions almost demand a form of WP:DR. -- Avi 07:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This should go without saying, but, dispute resolution only works with good-faith editors who are willing to engage in discussion. It's frankly idiotic to suggest this route with users who only edit war. At the same time, such responses encourage exactly this mode of engagement. Such users exist and operate in this way not out of naivity, but because they understand our system, discern its most obvious weaknesses and casually exploit them. Nine times out of ten, a user who shows up, says nothing and reverts three times a day won't be blocked. As it stands, there's really no reason for unscrupulous users not to do this.Proabivouac 07:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is why we have Requests for comment/User conduct as the first step to binding arbitration. Also, if teh vandalism is blatant, there always is WP:AIV. In this case, WP:ANI may be mre appropriate, but as much of this is content related, I can say that most likely y'all are headed to an RfC. and then an RfArb. THEN you may get a article ban for this user. Once again, if he blatantly vandalises, let someone know, but this particular 3RR may not be your answer. -- Avi 07:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So, if I open two dozen sockpuppets who do nothing but edit-war - quite feasable, if I use pop-ups - you have to open an RfC against each and every one of them, and when they don't respond, then you must open an arbitration against each and every one of them. That's just plain stupid. ArbCom probably wouldn't even take these cases. RfCU doesn't.Proabivouac

I see no evidence that Grandia01 is not willing to engage. Rather I see evidence that quite likely he/she/it is not as familiar with SOP as others here. AGF without escalation and let's see if we can handle this without an all-out-war. I've posted a new discussion to Talk Muhammad on the issue of the GOB inclusion. He has also backed off the Didache statement. So the user is obviously willing to arrive at some sort of compromise. Wjhonson 07:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC) :You deal with him, I'm done with it.Proabivouac 07:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This crankish material doesn't belong on the main article in any form, any more than did the proposed mention of the Knights Templar and Baphomet supposedly worshipping Muhammad. When faced with such nonsense, one doesn't say, okay, you can have a sentence to say that instead of a whole paragraph. The appropriate place for Ahmed Deedat's claims is on his own article.Proabivouac 22:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:USER
Proabivouac, i'd like your thoughts on this page and its not-so-subtle soapboxing, especially in the light of edits like these.  ITAQALLAH  00:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not quite as inflammatory as others I've gone after, but the title "Who are these men trying to emulate?" is, as you say, not-so-subtle, while the link from "How do you feel about women?" is inappropriate for user space. soapboxing it surely is, and I wish this were strictly enforced but let's face it, it's not - otherwise you wouldn't be allowed, per your banner, to urge me to follow God and convert to Islam before I die, right?:) So let's stick to the obviously inflammatory content. I'll ask her to change it.Proabivouac 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * thank you. i wouldn't regard my untranslated Qur'anic extract as campaigning ^_^.  ITAQALLAH   01:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I do. Arrow740 03:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And so do I. Threats about hellfire and demands that the reader convert to Islam, is not a civil or acceptable way to welcome people that just visit a user page. -- Karl Meier 20:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Threats about hellfire and demands that the reader convert to Islam", i'm not certain you quite know what you're talking about, Karl.  ITAQALLAH   06:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Have fear of God and die Muslim." No thanks. Arrow740 07:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * and who is it addressed to?  ITAQALLAH   07:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is addressed to Muhammad's own followers. The larger narrative of which it is a part says, don't let Jews and Christians lead you astray, but hold fast to Islam or face a horrible punishment in the next world. It is still campaigning, as it was when it was written.Proabivouac 07:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * yet i didn't include the whole narrative, just one verse which starts with "O you who believe..." - as it doesn't apparently address you or most people here, i see no problem...  ITAQALLAH   08:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, this is interesting. I'm curious as to how ProtectWomen's page was/is in violation of WP:USER --Matt57 21:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny you should ask, Matt. The only violation whatsoever that I could find on the WP:USER page was this:


 * "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. After you've been here for a while, and written lots of great articles, the community may be more inclined to let you get away with it. Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it."
 * It is only with specific regard to this passage that I respect the change made to my user page.


 * Also, Itaqallah, for future reference- please, if you have any problem with any of my edits, PLEASE PLEASE contact me directly, on my user talk page. There is no need to sneak around to other users, when we could have reached a compromise between the two of us. I don't think my edits are any more offensive than placing "Qur;an 3:102" on the userpage, but at least we could have tried to work it out before involving other parties first.  I am actually surprisingly civil and easy to talk to.  And I promise I won't bite  -unless you ask!  ;-) Peace.--ProtectWomen 09:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi ProtectWomen, you might see further bullying and covert intimidation from certain users, hopefully you wont let that effect your editing. This is their tactic to censor the spread of information and alternative viewpoints. Also if thats the case, I would like ItaqAllah to remove that Quranic verse from the top of his page. So ItaqAllah: Can you please remove that verse from your user page? Or else I think ProtectWomen should be free to maintain that link or any other information on their user page as well. The fact that the verse is untranslated has nothing to do with whether it should be on the user page or not. What if I said on my user page in Arabic "Islam is not a good religion for mankind" - is that ok? If not, then please remove that verse or othewise I will include this new Arabic verse on my user page as well because I should have the same consistent freedom. Infact, it is definitely soapboxing. ItaqAllah, please remove this verse from your user page or I will have to take further action.--Matt57 14:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * your intolerance of a simple verse from a religious scripture is rather amusing. i expect you will take issue with the multitude of other users who have scriptural extracts on their user pages.  ITAQALLAH   17:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Itaq, my "intolerance" for a religious scripture that banishes me to Hellfire? Come on. The verse is propaganda and hence soapboxing. Are you going to remove it or should I go the long route? If you dont remove it, I will at the least be forced to quote from other more interesting parts of the Quran and Hadith in a prominent way on my own user page. --Matt57 18:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "... a religious scripture that banishes me to Hellfire", i'd bet a lot of religious scriptures do similarly, your line here however has been one of judicious harrassment: you would dare not approach the numerous other users containing scriptural extracts, or quotes from anyone, on their userpages. i don't see anything about the verse which is 'propaganda'. do what you like, i'll most probably find it rather entertaining, if not a violation of WP:POINT.  ITAQALLAH   19:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

 Thats why I'm an athiest. Now if I bring in my own nice verse or hadith, that is just me; something I'd like to do. I followed your good example. It doesnt violate WP:POINT. Also this is a user page, so point is not applicable there. --Matt57 20:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Aseeel
Hopefully this will bring that nonsense to a close. 00:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hypotheticals
You know what Stephen Colbert did with the congressman re: cocaine in this report was along the same lines of my hypothetical with User:ProtectWomen. 01:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins
Bless sins seems to be wikistalking me. Beit Or 18:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

About me
Looking at the setion above as well as the one named "User:Blesssins", why do I have the feeling that your talk page has become the centre of making personal attacks and allegations against me?

Why have you accused me of bieng connected to 216.99.52.133? I think I have already told you that I dislike false accusations.Bless sins 01:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, were you/are you?Proabivouac 01:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Proabivouac, I had some respect for you until I came across this. You might as well join others like Arrow740, Beit Or etc. and accuse me of making "Jews are nasty" claims. And you might as well, like some other users, delete these comments. I really couldn't care less. I accepted your apologies before when you made an accusation. This time, however, the situation is different.Bless sins 01:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Btw, next time you conclude that I'm comitting outrageous behavior, please say it in my face, not behind my back.Bless sins 01:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you are not in any way connected to the person who posted as User:216.99.52.133?Proabivouac 01:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam and slavery lead
Dear interested editor: Please visit here: in the next few days and give your vote and your proposals on how the lead may be reworked and reformed to meet GA criteria before next nomination.DavidYork71 04:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

SCOTUS statue targetted
I wonder how much the article needs that statue image? That seems to be a central point of removal attempts. :-) 07:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

re: Alhamdulillah
i'm not a fluent Arabic speaker, nor an Arab by birth. the honest answer is that i don't quite know, so my thoughts would be a calculated guess. i am aware that it does possess some colloquial usage in that it is a part of contemporary Arab culture to adorn one's speech with such phrases (not as much Alhamdulillah than others like Inshallah), yet it does maintain a distinct 'sacridity'. it really varies with one individual, one family, one community to another, and maybe depends on their own religious awareness. it doesn't really parallel with exclaiming "thank God!" in contemporary English culture in my view, which is commonly employed, as you said, in a non-sacred or sometimes ironic manner. but then again, you'd probably be better off asking someone more familiar with Arab practice and custom.  ITAQALLAH  05:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"trolling"
It was not my intention to troll the AN/I page, and it was your best right to remove my remark as such. I'm just upset with Jayjg and the way he blocked my account user:Subversive element without any process (without even warning me once about my behaviour). I think many good (and also bad) users have left Wikipedia because of him and the rest of the cabal (like Nandesuka, Avi, Jakew, etc). Those are the real trolls, creatively wikilawyering their asses off. 87.78.177.72 05:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this about circumcision?Proabivouac 06:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It was, in the very beginning. They were not very welcoming, and I did a few stupid things, too. But they continue to intensively care for their favorite subjects, while I ended up indef blocked. Not entirely innocent, mind you. But I'd have appreciated some public attention for what was going on, or at least a single warning as a basic proof of assumption of good faith. 87.78.145.43 06:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The trouble in that thread was blatant antisemitism. Given recent history, it's a political mistake to associate opposition to circumcision or any other issue with antisemitism; you're better off waiting until some other issue comes up.Proabivouac 06:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Faisal of Saudi Arabia
Please be aware that POV-pushing is continuing on that article. Beit Or 22:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

User:DavidYork71
To see you defending this problematic editor is a bit disconcerting. Perhaps my previous estimation of your character and integrity in terms of editing on Islam related topics is wrong. 15:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't recall defending his edits, which are by his own virtual admission driven by an agenda - he is hardly the only editor to Islam related topics of whom this is so - and contain the unmistakable feel of original research. However, I don't see that charges of deliberate block evasion are the proper way to counter this, unless, of course, they are true. Re Islam and Slavery, I had meant to drop by the talk page last night, but did not have the opportunity to do so; perhaps I will find one soon.Proabivouac 15:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned the sooner editors like this on both sides of these issues leave the project, the better. 16:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is one approach. However, if efforts to speed this along are not applied evenhandedly, the only result would be to enable equally overt partisans of the other faction. In an ideal world, all editors would be both enthusiastic about contributing and completely neutral. Short of that, we have settled for a culture of semi-controlled advocacy and counter-advocacy, with predictable shortcomings. In this context, the immediate goal should be to ensure that DavidYork71's participation conforms with the expectations which govern this arrangement.Proabivouac 16:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You know this editor is unmistakeably avoiding his latest block now. Given this disruptive behavior I very much think the earlier AGFing was off-base. 07:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite certain about the basis for the latest block - canvassing is bad, but hardly ever results in blocks; at the same time I believe it should, hence my failure to weigh in, I am uncomfortable with either side - however, it is, as you say, quite evident that he has been evading it through anon IPs, and as a matter of general principle this cannot go unrecognized. Please let me know if there is somewhere you would like me to comment to this effect.Proabivouac 07:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't even so much that he was canvassing but what was moreso the problem was that he was canvassing in quid pro quo style and trying to game the GA system that really was wrong. This combined with his other odd edits (Wikilinklinking autosodomy to Yoga related articles?) is disruptive.  08:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Autosodomy...that's just plain weird, and plainly disruptive.
 * Then again, I think all crankery disruptive, see Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, 9/11 conspiracy theories/theorists, Quran and Speed of Light. Cranks of any kind should be blocked without mercy, and their crankery deleted; would you agree?Proabivouac 08:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad
Deleteing the comments of other users from Talk, except in a few rare instances, is vandalism. Please refrain from doing so. Wjhonson 06:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007
The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad
Zazaban tries to impose some baseline of topicality to the talk page discussion.,. The second of these was reverted by Wjhonson.. I seconded Zazaban’s edit, but was likewise reverted.,. Wjhonson left both of us vandalism warnings,, to which I replied as follows:  What is your opinion on this matter, as it will surely arise in the future? As it is, the talk page remains a nearly unusable mess, and I feel like Zazaban and I are being told that violates policy for us to change this.Proabivouac 17:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Pro. Sorry for this late reply. Well, checking the history, i must say that you and Zazaban acted the proper way (somehow according to WP:TPG and WP:NOT).
 * However, Wjhonson is also correct in reverting back. The point is that you, Zazaban and Wjhonson did not make a difference between the 2 sections in question. As i see here, there's "Question about Muhammad" and then "What's the big deal with posting Mohammed's picture?". For me, the last section is out of topic as it does not deal w/ the topic. For the first section, while assuming good faith, i'd have asked the editor of that section about the name of the book he talked about and see if he's just trolling before removing that section. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  12:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

VE In Pakistan
I can't dig out the edit right now, but he implied his Pakistani location a few times, and ALM addressed him as being a Pakistani, perhaps even an acquaintance in real life. Erm, I think the archive of VE's talk page, along with Ctrl+F of "Lahore" or "Paki" will show the edit. It might be worthwhile to try this on other pages in question, such as User Talk:ALM_scientist or Talk:Muhammad/Images. Hope that helps. Thanks, --Hojimachongtalk 07:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment on AN/I
Please do not make comments like this one on AN/I. They can be interpreted as personal attacks. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 07:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR blocks
This report might be of interest to you. 09:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also this talk. 09:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment on AN/I
Have you ever heard the story of the boy who cried "Wolf"? The more and more you make false accusations against me, the less I am inclined to even bother with responding to them. Here you've accused an anon of bieng my "associate". It may be true tht the anon is violating WP:CIVIL, but you, by making false accusations, aren't exactly following the policy either. Have you ever heard of the Golden rule?Bless sins 17:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)