User talk:RiskAficionado/Archive 13

Image:MuhammadSeal.jpg
Hi. Can you tell me what year that seal is from? If it's pre 1923 (which, I am guessing it is) and if you have a source with such information then it is in the public domain no matter when it was taken since it is a two dimensional image. gren グレン 00:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the source the seal apparently dates back to the time of Muhammad ("Rare letters bearing the seal of holy Prophet Mohammed and addressed to the kings of Egypt and Ethiopia, the emperors of Iran and Rome and Governors of Bahrain and Oman are on display in the Calligraphic exhibition that is being held in the Salar Jung Museum."). The ALT text for the seal image reads "The seal of Holy Prophet." ITAQALLAH   14:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

CFD
Hi, you previously commented on this CFD, and a similar one is up for deletion here. Please comment when you get a chance. Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  06:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

expanding Muslim military history task force
I have been reelected coordinator and brought up the old discussion about expanding Muslim military history to the present day. This has been an issue raised by Muslim editors when the task force was founded. It would be great if you could help expanding the articles that present what makes Islams treatment of war effect especially the Muslim warfare. I have been reading a bit on the topic and can help you with advice, but feel myself not confident enough with my limited knowledge. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Muslim World Population
How about this one: They claim they took this from the CIA fact sheet or whatever it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TelusFielder (talk • contribs) 23:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If they say they took it from the CIA factsheet, it would be best to locate and source the factsheet directly. ITAQALLAH   23:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad article
I'm very hard-line on the images in the article, so people might get the idea I'm anti-islam (which I try not to be) but some of the crap that people want to try and stick in that article disgusts me. --Fredrick day (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The February 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Mecca
Do you think that it is discriminatory for there to be a ban on non-Muslims in Mecca? Are there any reliable sources that clarify the issue by explaining why is the law there and whether its unfair to non-Muslims.Bless sins (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there are other sanctified places in other religions where the respesctive non-believers are not allowed to enter. To call it religious discrimination is lunacy. And no, I'm not immediately familiar with the RS commentary here. ITAQALLAH   13:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sharia
Article appears to me to be a terrible mess currently. I don't know if you've looked at it recently. It seems to mix up the question of the integration of sharia into legal systems around the world (in itself a very complex topic) and the punishments that might then be applied by courts. I know that it is obviously such punishments that occasion press coverage, for example the Nigerian cases, but it makes the article very unbalanced. I haven't had a lot to do with the article in the past because I don't have any expertise on the issue, but could help with the article's structuring and sourcing if necessary. Best wishes. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There may be an issue with regards to weightage given to respective issues. The core of the article certainly needs to be Islamic legal theory (i.e. the sources of Sharia or its status in Islamic thought), and I think the issue of comparisons with other legal systems or a specifically recentist focus on incidents reported in the media should be minimal. I'll have a closer look through soon and share my thoughts. ITAQALLAH   15:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Scare quotes
Phobia is defined as "irrational fear". Surely those who "argue that Islamophobia is justified" do not believe that it's an irrational "phobia". Hence the quotes. --Bernard Marx (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ali
Oh man, the request I dreaded receiving.

I didn't look at the material removed specifically. The articles for Ali, some of the companions, and pretty much any early battle involving the first khawaarij of shee'ah are hopeless messes of POV and obviously biased material, for reasons you and I both already know. I avoided looking into specifics because honestly, it looked like such a time consuming task that I didn't want to bother with it.

But it looks like you've ended that, King Buzzkill. Yeah, in shaa Allaah i'll help you with it, the Ali article is probably the best place to start. Should we start a review on the talk page using the article's sandbox? MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Warraq's not being reliable source
Where is this consensus that Ibn Warraq is not a reliable source? I could not find it anywhere. I can perfectly understand excluding, say, Ali Sina or Jerry Falwell, but Ibn Warraq is not a political extremist. The article is called "Criticism of the Qur'an", so it seems ridiculous to exclude one of the most famous critics of Islam from it. Epa101 (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Epa101. I've responded with regards to Ali Dashti and Ibn Warraq on Talk:Criticism of the Qur'an. Regards, ITAQALLAH   23:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Good articles
Salam Alaykum

I've reviewed Allah which has nominated by Aminz and really impressed. But I want to know your idea before making decision. I've also nominated Ali as a good article. Few sentences need sources but we can add them soon. Please check the article especially the last part of it.-- Seyyed(t-c) 16:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at the Allah article in a while.
 * I feel that the Ali article, however, is inadequate. Too many areas use primary sources (whose authenticity may be disputed) such as Nahj al-Balagha or partisan sources which are of unproven reliability, such as al-shia.com, balagh.net, eurohajjmission.org, nahjulbalagha.org, shiacode.org, shaheedfoundation.org... the list goes on and on. I am concerned that the article leans unduly towards Shi'a sources and perspectives. I'm not saying we should use Sunni works or websites (we shouldn't), but I suggest we remove all of the partisan websites and sources and restrict our coverage solely to what is related in academic scholarly sources. This will improve the quality and respectability of the article, and allay concerns that the article is pro-Sunni or pro-Shi'a or pro-anything. ITAQALLAH   22:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be frankly said that secular- academic or whatever one names it- studies are by no means objective.--Be happy!! (talk) 00:30, 19 March 200 (UTC)
 * I realise that. But the standard of reliability used across Wikipedia should be consistent. We've managed to make high quality good and featured articles without ever needing partisan material/websites/authors which themselves don't meet Wikipedia standards on reliability. ITAQALLAH   00:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you but when I asked others to help me they refused, so I wanted to attract others attention. I should remind you that all of the primary sources comprising Quran, Nahj al-Balaqa and Sihah just for clarification and in every case I've added some reliable and secondary sources. I can remove all of those primary sources easily. I copy this discussion in Talk:Ali.-- Seyyed(t-c) 02:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Semantics of Hadith
I agree, that was choppy. I did not, however, in anyway intend to translate word for word as that is a sort of non-translation; or perhaps, a partial translation as the grammatical constructs remain left in the original language. Hopefully, you will find my new, minor correction sufficient. Do you agree that the hadith page has become somewhat of a mess of polemics? Supertouch (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Zakir Naik
Dear ITAQALLAH, you recently reverted an edit I made to Zakir Naik's page. I believe this edit was erroneous since the mullah Zakir Naik says "Every Muslim Should be a Terrorist". For the video of this speech please check the YouTube video of it: Every Muslim Should be a Terrorist. Please do not try to enforce your beliefs or any form of Islamic fundamentalism on others through Wikipedia.

Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia the recent undo(edit) you made to Zakir Naik appeared to be biased and fundamentalist and has been reverted or removed. If you want play around with Wikpedia, please use the sandbox for any silly or absurd edits you would like to make, and then take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - Arjun Menon —Preceding comment was added at 20:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please spare me the trollish remarks, adhering to content policies is not "fundamentalism". Anyone who sees the video can understand that Zakir Naik is playing a game of semantics and attempting to show how the word "terrorist" is often subjective. ITAQALLAH   20:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.
 * I have temporarily removed the Indian terrorists category but I believe the Indian Islamists category must remain, owing to the intense campaign of proselytism pursued by Zakir Naik. You disagree on whether Zakir Naik is a terrorist despite the YouTube video proving it, please explain you viewpoint more clearly.
 * Please refrain from reinserting categories that are not verified by any reliable sources in the article. Continuing to do so here, which is a biography of a living person, will get you blocked. ITAQALLAH   21:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Islamic music
Hey salam alaykum, I was wondering if you could throw in your two cents on this article. A certain user decided to throw in some POV in the haraam or halaal section, typical Qur'an Alone and Qaradaawee stuff you might expect. When I reverted as the links used as references were just ridiculous, the person instead of discussing it on talk went directly to WP:ANI. I have a feeling they won't listen to me, and you have a good track record with getting through to people. Could you take a look at that article's history and perhaps comment? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've posted some comments on the talk page. ITAQALLAH   17:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Fiqh
Hi Itaqallah,

I am not sure if that would be a good addition to the Muhammad article. According to the EoI:

"Recent historical research, however, has shown that Islamic jurisprudence came into being towards the end of the first century of the hid̲j̲ra (early 8th century A.D.). During the greater part of the 1st/7th century, Islamic law, in the technical meaning of the term, and therefore Islamic jurisprudence, did not as yet exist. As had been the case in the time of the Prophet, law as such fell outside the sphere of religion, and so far as there were no religious or moral objections to specific transactions or modes of behaviour, the technical aspects of law were a matter of indifference to the Muslims. Not only did Arab customary law, as modified and completed by the Ḳurʾān, survive to a considerable extent, but the Muslims did not hesitate to adopt the legal, commercial and administrative institutions and practices of the conquered territories, and even legal concepts and maxims, as far as they were compatible with the demands of the new religious ideas (see above). As supreme rulers and administrators, the Caliphs of Medina acted to a great extent as the lawgivers of the community, and they were followed in this by the Umayyad Caliphs and their governors; during the whole of the first century of Islam, the administrative and legislative activities of the Islamic government cannot be separated. The Umayyad governors also appointed the first ḳāḍīs who by their decisions laid the foundations of what was to become Islamic law. They gave judgment  according to their own discretion or “sound opinion” ( raʾy ), basing themselves on customary practice and on administrative regulations, and taking the letter and the spirit of the Ḳurʾān and other recognized Islamic religious norms into account. Subsequent developments brought it about that the part played by the earliest ḳāḍīs in laying the foundations of Islamic law was not recognized by Islamic  jurisprudence. Towards the end of the first century of the hid̲j̲ra (early 8th century A.D.) only we encounter the first specialists in religious law whose activity can be regarded as historical, such as Ibrāhīm al-Nak̲h̲aʿī in Kūfa, and Saʿīd b. al-Musayyib and his contemporaries in Medina. They were pious persons whose interest in religion caused them to survey, either individually or in discussion with like-minded friends, all fields of contemporary activities, including the field of law, from an Islamic angle, to impregnate the sphere of law with religious and ethical ideas, and to elaborate, by individual reasoning ( raʾy, istiḥsān  id̲j̲tihād [qq.v.]), an Islamic way of life. Their reasoning represents the beginnings of an Islamic jurisprudence. Islamic jurisprudence did not grow out of an existing Islamic law; it created Islamic law by endorsing, modifying or rejecting the popular and administrative practice of the Umayyad period."

--Be happy!! (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarification Itaqallah. The same is actually true of other Islamic sciences. Shouldn't we mention them as well? I mean we remove the section from "Sunna and Islamic law" to "Islamic sciences". --Be happy!! (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Additions
Itaqallah, a user named User:Mahmoud123 is repeatedly inserting this edit to Muhammad article. I am really desperate. The additions make no sense to me. Please take a look at. Can you please help with that article. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: DYK
I'm sorry in that case. I've canceled my nomination.

Bless sins (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

For my information
What do Sunnis generally think about the phrase "For whoever I am a Mawla of, then Ali is his Mawla". Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. But in relation to the rise of Shia, it may be insufficient to merely mention that they thought of Ali as the rightful successor. According to EoI, Shia, "In the lifetime of Muḥammad, his close kin enjoyed a raised religious status of purity recognised by the Ḳurʾān . As his kin (d̲h̲awu 'l-ḳurbā), there were counted the descendants of his great-grandfather Hās̲h̲im and, to some extent, the descendants of Hās̲h̲im's brother al-Muṭṭalib. They were, like the Prophet himself, not allowed to receive or to handle alms ( 								 zakāt  							) as these were considered unclean. In compensation for this exclusion they were entitled to receive a portion of the k̲h̲ums, the fifth of war booty reserved to the Prophet, and of the  								 fayʾ  							 [q.v.], property which fell to the Muslims without war effort. After Muḥammad's death, the establishment of the caliphate by  Abū Bakr  on the basis of a privileged position for the tribe of  Ḳuraysh as a whole, and the confiscation of Muḥammad's property, deprived the Prophet's  Family  of the special status, as they were disinherited and lost their title to their Ḳurʾānic share of the khums and  								 fayʾ  							. The  Banū  							 Hās̲h̲im  vainly protested against these developments by refusing to pledge allegiance to  Abū Bakr  for six months. The disestablishment of the  Family  of the Prophet after his death was the ultimate motive for the rise of the Shīʿa."
 * --Be happy!! (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if everybody believes that the Shia-Sunni split did not exists in small inner circles though the external movement of it may have started later. According to EoI, The most basic distinguishing beliefs of the S̲h̲īʿa thus go back to ʿAlī, who must to this extent be considered its founder and first teacher. This fact has been largely unpalatable to Sunnī historiography, which therefore created and propagated as the founder of the S̲h̲īʿa the figure of ʿAbd Allāh b. Sabaʾ  [q.v.], the malicious Yemenite Jew who first stirred up the rebellion against ʿUt̲h̲mān and invented the doctrine of ʿAlī being the legatee of Muḥammad, ending up with extremist fiction denying the death of ʿAlī and deifying him. Only this latter aspect may well have had a historical foundation. Ibn Sabaʾ appears to have been active in al-Madāʾin after ʿAlī's death and to have propagated belief in his return ( 								 rad̲j̲ʿa  							) and ultimate victory over his enemies. --Be happy!! (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Ali
Salam Alaykum. I'm really angry with you. Not because of your viewpoint about the article, but because you didn't participate in it. Even you and the other Sunnis haven't provide secondary sources for the parts which directly speak about Sunni viewpoint. Then you come and say why the article is slanted. Why shouldn't be!!!:((-- Seyyed(t-c) 13:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course I need your help and I change my view like the case of Nahj al-Balagha if your reason is good. And while we could achieve consensus about Ghadir, what prevent us to achieve consensus in other cases. In addition, don't bother yourself about irritating me. I can withdraw the article at present if you want. Then we can co-work to improve it. And finally I should mention that I did my best in most of the cases and read different sources in almost every cases, so you should read several books to change the article. By the way this 15 days editions make me tired. Thus God willing I'll return one or two months later to improve the article. -- Seyyed(t-c) 13:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
Hi Itaqallah,

Could you please take a look at my proposal here (diff ). Thanks in advance, Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad
Hi Itaqallah,

I wrote a section Sunna (under legacy). If it looks good, do you think we are ready to nominate the article for GA? --Be happy!! (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Farewell section expanded. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Suggestion
I notice that you started the article on Martin Forward. Is an article on Clinton Bennett appropriate, author such books as Victorian Images of Islam, In Search of Muhammad, Muslims and Modernity. His home page is www.clintonbennett.net70.208.176.183 (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Mr. Bennett's website actually appears to be this. I think an article would be warranted so long as you can meet the notability criteria for people, that is, locating biographies or discussions about Mr. Bennett in independent reliable sources. I'll keep an eye out for any usable sources too. ITAQALLAH   15:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Capabilities to serve
Hi Itaqallah,

I noticed you removed "Ali being convinced of having special capabilities to serve" from Muhammad article. I highly disagree with this (please see the second quote here )--Be happy!! (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Traffic
Hello, I noticed that Muhammad article gets much more efforts from editors than the Qur'an article gets, however please note that the Qur'an is viewed 10 times more than Muhammad by viewers. Take a look:. Just thought to bring this to your attention. Imad marie (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had started work on the Qur'an article quite a while ago, having wrote the Etymology/meaning section as well as part of the format/structure section. I do intend to focus on the Qur'an article as well, just as soon as I finish up on the Muhammad article. ITAQALLAH   10:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, this the correct link, as "Muhammed" redirects to "Muhammad." ITAQALLAH   14:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, yes you are right, so the ratio is 3:1 now. Imad marie (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

New article
Would you support a creation of a new article that is similar in subject to this section?Bless sins (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are sufficient reliable sources focusing on this topic, then forking it out into a new article may well be appropriate. ITAQALLAH   20:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should split off Islamophobia. The reason being that Islamophobia shouldn't be listing every alleged Islamophobic act or view. It should have sub-articles like antisemitism does. Only the most notable perceptions of Islamophobia should be included in the article.Bless sins (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Another suggestion
 * Yes, I think the 'Public discourse' section is a hinderance and a bit of an unnecessary list. I'd like to see it summarised in ~2 paragraphs (after which I think the article will be ready for GAN) and the rest of the content forked into another (or a new) article somehow. ITAQALLAH   11:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

New change in WP:MOSISLAM
Salam Alaykum

Two weeks ago I put a comment in the talk page of MOSISLAM and proposed using "The Prophet" in especial cases and about one weeks ago I changed WP:MOSISLAM. Nobody protest or change my proposal. Thus I want to insert it in the related articles.-- Seyyed(t-c) 23:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, for your answer. I copied it |here.-- Seyyed(t-c) 06:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Barelwi
Our friend Shabiha appears to be at it again. Another editor (I believe it was Scythian) added some info on the criticism section for Barelwi, which was sourced, stating that Salafees and Deobandees accuse Barelwees of practices that constitute kufr and influence from Hinduism. Obviously the Barelwee editors are refusing to accept that, stating that it's biased despite the fact that the article is only stating the claim and not validating it. I could bring it to arbitration with the admins which would obviously not turn out in their favor, but that could take months. Do you think you could try to arbitrate on this one if you have the time? MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've opened a section on the talk page and requested full page protection at WP:RFPP. ITAQALLAH   16:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I ran across your intentions. I too have doubts about the ahya.org site, and posted a comment to that effect on the talk page. Meanwhile, to ease the edit war pressure, I took the initiative to copy-edit the material and neutralize as much of the venom as I could:-) I think the new version can stay until either a better source is found or the reliability of ahya.org can be established. rudra (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tawhid
Hi Itaqallah,

I am working on this article to raise it to the GA status. In case you had some spare time, it would be nice if you could help with it. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good! I'll work a bit more on the Tawhid article and then switch back to Muhammad. I think at some time we need to have a once-for-all-time lengthy discussion about what to include about the succession of Muhammad. I also think the last image of the article (the black stone image) is out of place for purely content-related reasons and posted something here but apparently people resist removal of the image because they think it has something to do with censorship etc. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If the black stone image is that significant then we can keep it. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

New change in WP:MOSISLAM
As you see few wikipedians have participated in the discussion since three weeks ago. Thus I want to wait for another week and then decide about the result of the discussion.

Thanks for your comment.-- Seyyed(t-c) 06:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad
Hey buddy, you're getting into an edit war it seems. Might want to discuss stuff with the other editor first. :) Jmlk  1  7  00:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't intend to make any further edits about that aspect for the time being. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion required
Asalamualikum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Yarmouk The strength of armies at battle of yarmuk is disputed. Early sources mentioned the size to be around 200,000-240,000 which are certainly highly exaggrated. Modern estimates are as follows:
 * History of palestine, by Gil and Broido (1997): 100,000.
 * Donner (1981): 100,000.
 * David Chandler: 100,000
 * Kennedy (2006, p. 145): 80,000.
 * Mango, Cyril (2002). The Oxford History of Byzantium. 80,000
 * David nicolle, Yarmouk 636. 50,000
 * Kindersley, 80,000
 * Andre Corvisier 80,000
 * Yarmouk university, department of history, jordan. says; 125,000
 * Agha Ibrahim Akram: 150,000
 * M. Athar Zaidi (Expansion of Islam, Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University Dehli): 100,000-120,000
 * Ibn Rais ( Rise of Caliphate from BOĞAZİÇİ UNIVERSITY, department of history, Turkey.): 100,000

Looking at the lower ends, most of the sources places numbers to be around 80,000-100,000. Now what the dispute is, it is that User:Wiki1609 insist that the army size should be placed to be 20,000-25,000 claiming that Kegri and Haldon mentioned this size in there book for byzantine army at yarmuk. Though i have showed upon him that this size was for the muslim armies not for the byzaitne army and they just simply avoided stating any size for byzantine arm,y clearly and thus mentioned that "byzantine outnumbered arabs".... he still insist that leaving all historians behind these two must be preffered over all ! Now third party is invited and it wants a opinion of other users, you are invited to express your views. It must be noted that 5 byzantine expedition armies were sent by heraculis to rollback syria with there won different objects, the retreat of muslim armies with out fight, from all over syria to yarmuk, forced those 5 armies to gather near yarmuk and thus battle of yarmuk was fought. The size of usuall byzantine expedition force use to be 15,000-30,000 in that era. Regards. Mohammad Adil (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to get you dragged into this
But Shabiha has started wikistalking me and randomly reverting my edits elsewhere now. I opened up for a third time a complaint at WP:ANI which you can see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Blatant_harassment.2C_personal_attacks.2C_and_stalking_by_repeat_offender. here]. Some comments would be appreciated since you're technically been a target of the invective too. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)