User talk:Timothy Usher/Archive 5

Clarification
''Jeez, Nathan, how am I supposed to know? Nathanrdotcom, what's the r, then?''

Nathan - first name. R - first letter of last name. "dotcom" obviously a mention of my personal website. If you put it all together: nathanrdotcom = nathanr.com = www.nathanr.com (either one will work)

If the username Nathan wasn't taken, I'd have used it. It was, so I didn't. I'd like to have it, but it's taken (last time I had it checked).

All through the years, since I've started using the net - that's for the past eleven years - I've never liked the use of "NathanR". It looks way too AOL-ish. It's nothing personal. — Natha  n  (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Mohammy Muhammad quotes
I think deleting the whole quotations section was a good compromise :) --FairNBalanced 18:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Timothy, query for you here in case you miss it. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just saw it, SV. Good to see you back.  Will respond in a bit.Timothy Usher 18:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :-) And no rush for a response. I'm just curious as to which phrases you think could be misinterpreted, and in what context. SlimVirgin (talk)  19:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you for returning! I'm actually going through the entire history of the policy, so expect a fairly substantial report.Timothy Usher 19:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Yeah, I left information on the talk page for that.


 * KV(Talk) 20:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Feel free to report me. BhaiSaab talk 01:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say report him, making clear the nature of the reverts. The 3RR policy page articulates what is established by precedent. If an uninvolved admin reviews and blocks him, he has "violated 3RR." Tom Harrison Talk 01:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Aisha
Unlike many newer editors you might be able to frighten off with your POV pushing I've actually followed the Aisha debate for over twelve months, so your intimidation won't work on me. &#0151; JEREMY 10:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No hadith is specific against the young age, as we both know. However, if one (ie. you) is to accept the young age hadith as correct and reject the hadith which contradict it, one (ie. you) must necessarily be championing a particular POV (something you seem almost farcically eager to do). Please don't be disingenuous with me, Timothy; I find it even more objectionable than your constant POV pushing, rules lawyering and harassment of those you have determined to be your opponents. &#0151; JEREMY 11:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject
Timothy, I disagree with your changes to WikiProject Judaism, and have reverted them. Primarily, you removed the vitally important paragraph warning WikiProject members to monitor for NPOV in Biblical articles. Furthermore, your edits appear meddlesome considering you have not registered as a member of the WikiProject, nor attempted to conduct any form of discussion on the WikiProject's talkpage. JFW | T@lk  11:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your "vitally important paragraph" is precisely what never under any circumstances should have been restored. I've replied on your talk page.Timothy Usher 11:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are uncomfortable with the phrasing on that page, you are encouraged to discuss this on the talkpage first. Do not make your edits again without appropriate discussion, for reasons of WP:POINT. JFW | T@lk  11:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The vitally important paragraph addressed the important point that Biblical articles frequently do not adequately represent the Jewish view. This is a function of WP:NPOV, and you should not be removing that paragraph. JFW | T@lk  11:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you explain to me the need for “Jewish vs. Christian perspectives?


 * Can you explain how you are assuming good faith when you write, “Being on the lookout when certain "Biblical" articles are written with clear subtle and not-so-subtle anti-Semitic intent...”?


 * By the way, it's absurd that you cite WP:NPOV to justify material warning Project members that Christians are out to get them.


 * I await your response.Timothy Usher 11:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether you are right or wrong, the text on the WikiProject page is consensus of the project members. I cannot disagree that allegations of anti-Semitism should be revised to reflect WP:AGF (I didn't write that text). But deleting them outright is equally WP:POINT. Because contrary to your apparent perception there have been numerous anti-Jewish editors on Wikipedia, some of which have been running rampant for quite some time. JFW | T@lk  11:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm totally aware of that. That doesn't justify gearing up Project members to expect fights.  That's unduly and unproductively contentious.  A look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild should enlighten you as to the reasons these changes are necessary.


 * I'm glad we can at least agree that there is a problem with this text. We also shouldn't be soliciting changes to or "defense of" particular articles.  I invite you to change the language so as to conform to policy and good judgement.


 * As for WP:POINT, all I can suggest is, re-read.Timothy Usher 11:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to agree with JFW on this one. I don't think there was anything to suggest that the text indicated that chrisitans were "out to get them", there was nothing innappropriate about what was written, if something offended you I would prefer you use the talk page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not about me being offended. Where these content disputes are concerned, I'm rather inclined to assume that the problem is very real, and that the posts were made in good faith.  It's more of a general point about how these projects should work, and, no, I don't have to join the project to notice this.  In fact, an outside view may be precisely what is needed, and I encourage you to seek opinions from others.  Please consider if there might be some way to preserve most of this text while addressing my objections.Timothy Usher 19:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Siberian_language
You are not right, siberian language is really existing, now it is supported be a lot of people, and, by the way, siberian is my native language.

(Sorry for my bad English) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steel archer (talk • contribs)

IPT's popularity
The issue here has nothing to do with IPT's popularity. He was given a week's block, and unblocked solely for the purpose of addressing his Arbitration case. He should not be making any other edits during that week, regardless of how innocuous they are. Jayjg (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The edit he'd reverted consisted of adding "hi" to a portion of a serious article. But I see your point.Timothy Usher 19:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As I was pointing out, the actual content of his edits is irrelevant. Moreover, he has continued to edit since then. Jayjg (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, a good-faith and probably helpful edit, but substantive, and knowingly in violation of his terms. He can always be reblocked, and post his statements on his talk page for someone else to move over to the arbitration page.Timothy Usher 19:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Block notice
Now rectified; thanks for letting me know. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Golden Dawn
Nah, I have a friend who pointed it out, and no, not interested in something so futile. Let him handle it. :)

KV(Talk) 03:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"unqualified"
I was misunderstanding your sentence. Thanks for the explanation. I learned something new today! --Aminz 04:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

trolling
I think the page you are looking for is WP:DFTT. There is no end of anonymous passers-by ranting on talkpages. No need to bat an eyelid. Remind them of WP:NOT ('a discussion forum') and revert the more blatant outbursts. dab (&#5839;) 10:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done.Timothy Usher 10:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA/Gurch
Thanks for the support – Gurch 17:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad(p)
The statement has its sources in the Aisha article. BhaiSaab talk 17:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That section is itself disputed as it's based upon unreliable sources, while if these sources are removed (as they ought to be), it's original research. The Hadith are direct and clear, while the counterevidence is extrapolatory - for example, so she accompanied him on a raid - for us to say, therefore she must have been older simply doesn't follow.  We may as well say, Muhammad had sex with her, therefore she mut have been older - and isn't this really what this argument boils down to?  Again, non sequitur.


 * Also, we can't use one wikipedia article as a source for another; this is a basic component of the source policy.Timothy Usher 18:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

User:FairNBalanced
You've got to be kidding me, seriously. That ridiculous pig image is as vile if not more so than anything over on the extreme Muhammad section. For you to be comparing me to him just reaks in my mind. My one time mistake of reverting to include that site in the Muhammad article was based upon what I had previously viewed on that site (which did not include such hateful material at that time). I'm sorry but after this latest act my suspension of doubt regarding FairNBalanced's lack of good faith has evaporated. Netscott 22:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to have offended you, Netscott. It wasn't my intention.Timothy Usher 22:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Seeing how you've responded I think you understand my reaction. Netscott 22:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Another thing, is it not obvious that User:FairNBalanced didn't merely "snap this photo in June 2006"? He either: 1. downloaded it from another site or 2. photoshopped the original pig image he "took" to include the arabic calligraphy. Because of this strangeness, I'm also doubting the summary info for that image. Netscott 22:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You can try to add to the top of the image file. I suspect you'll have success by citing both reasons. Netscott 23:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As I noted on the user talk of Crzrussian, who posted at AIV, I don't know this guy very well, but he seems to be contributing seriously in the past, although that photo looks very bad, so I'm open to discussion about modifying the block length. Although I would have thought that you don't need much prior tutorial that those sorts of things aren't allowed.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Timothy, regarding this story you might want to comment over here. Netscott 11:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You are not asinine but your comparison is. It appears that you fail to see this. Netscott 13:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Netscott, you're great, but everything you say is totally stupid. Note that I didn't personally attack you, I am only commenting on your contributions.  I hope you appreciate this distinction, and see my point.  You're kidding yourself if you think you can talk to people this way and not offend.Timothy Usher 13:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if you continue to make ridiculous comparisons (and repeatedly try to argue for them) you can be sure that our interactions won't tend to be beneficial in nature. As I look at the WP:ANI board I can see that others are agreeing with my estimation of your comparison. Netscott 13:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Netscott, civility can't be gamed. Had I offended you, I would have apologized, but it seems you're above all that everyday social stuff.Timothy Usher 13:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Timothy, I think you're one of the more self-consistent and honest editors here, but that lots of what you say is not appropriate for this project. Nevertheless, as with Netscott, if we all try to avoid one another's sore spots we can work constructively together. Your bugbear about people self-identifying with particular religions is causing you to appear out of step to many editors. I think that to a lot of Muslims, for whom religion is a lifestyle rather than a census checkbox, the idea that it's inappropriate to discuss such things on their user pages is very odd and confronting. Empathy and benefit-of-the-doubt politics go a long way towards efficient collaboration. &#0151; JEREMY 13:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You are aware that in western societies there is such a thing as crime by association (accessory to a crime) are you not? I would advise you to distance yourself from User:FairNBalanced and focus on improving the encyclopedia. This is rather unfortunate as up until this point all of your editing on Wikipedia has generally been positive. In my mind your argumentation is likely a good faith but misguided attempt at justifying User:FairNBalanced's reprehensible acts. Netscott 13:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Now you're saying something reasonable and not unduly confrontational and asinine, thank you. Yes, in case you haven't realized, I am trying to bring this user into compliance with policy.  I think the way you disassociate yourself perhaps very smart, but kind of fake.  You can't honestly tell me there's not a part of you that wants to give a Karl Meier style apology to people who burned embassies, kidnapped innocents and vandalized wikipedia based on the Danish cartoons.  The mistake of a certain user here is simply to be thoughtlessly, naïvely honest.  I'm not promoting it as some kind of romantic thing.  Life isn't Catcher in the Rye.  But nevertheless.Timothy Usher 13:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Referring to Karl Meier in this dicussion is a sore point for me.... there's no doubt about it that he endured personal attacks for a one time addition to his talk page. I have never ever harbored similiar sentiments corresponding to that link and I'm surprised that you'd think I ever would. To a large extent I can fully understand the fury released by the cartoons in the context that so many of those who actually protested never even saw what they looked like and sooner relied upon their imaginations (which let's make no mistake about it, can run wild) or were told/given the impression that they included the images shown on page 34, 35 and 36 of the Akkari-Laban dossier. Netscott 14:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, so what? I've seen those fakes as well.  So what?  Some Danish guy (so you assume) draws one of these pictures, so you attack some random westerner?  E.g. aid workers in Gaza?  Or burn an embassy down (see apologists who never tire of pronouncements on "international law", not realizing that diplomatic immunity is a hell of a lot more central and accepted than most of what's discussed?)  So friggin' what?  What buildings were burnt down, who was assaulted after the infamous Piss Christ?  I think the answer is no one.  And when's the last time you saw Jews rioting after anti-Semitic images in the Middle Eastern press?  I believe the answer is never.  Having low expectations is not a mark of respect.Timothy Usher 14:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an apologist, while I can understand the behavior I'm not saying it can be excused. I do my best not to fail to see a neutral point of view when considering such topics while I edit on Wikipedia. But this conversation has digressed a bit as it now has little to do with User:FairNBalanced's hateful demonstrations on his user page. Netscott 14:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've always held the philosophy that we start with the people around us. That may not reflect well upon us.  It's a lot easier to love everyone in theory than in practice.  How cheap to treat people badly on the premise of "stopping hate".  That's just us eking out our righteousness credits at their expense.  It amounts to nothing.  I recognize it's complicated.  I recognize it isn't easy, or obvious.  And I also recognize how you intended to take advantage of a new user to prove your own neutrality.  You weren't kind, generous or loving to him, and you've not been so to me, despite our positive history.  So I'm not clear as to what your "stop the hate" stuff amounts to beyond politically calculated self-righteous bullshit.Timothy Usher 15:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What you are failing to realize (I suppose due to another lack of proper research) is that User:FairNBalanced's hateful demonstrations are not new and in fact on previous occasions I counciled him to avoid demonstrating such lacking of good faith. To my last recommendation he responded by adding the pig image. Your questioning of my motivations is also ridiculous. This is not the first time that I have seen such repetitive demonstrations of a lack of good faith on the part of a fellow editor and on those previous occassions the editors I've witnessed doing this have ultimately been banned despite my councils that they refrain from such demonstrations. I don't take kindly to those who repeatedly demonstrate a lack of good faith and to better the project towards reducing such influences I tend to make efforts to help show them the door. This has been true both for Muslim and non-Muslim editors. Netscott 15:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What you call "hateful demonstrations" was in fact a pun on superstitious nonsense, like Quranic fish or Allah fish, which seems to have mushroomed recently. Pecher Talk 17:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Talkpage summaries?
Timothy, your excellent work at talk:3RR led me to realise that many talk pages (particularly those of significant or controversial articles) would benefit from a "talkpage summary", a kind of FAQ for editors of the page, documenting the development of consensus, the status of debates etc. Such a summary page could be a subpage of the main article (so it could have its own talkpage) and link exclusively to archived (ie. non-live) talkpage diffs to validate its precis. Sections could be copied back to the talk page for additional discussion as required, although more often than not a referral to the relevant section would assist in defusing edit wars. Existing pages would need to be gradually "summarised into" such a schema, by editors prepared to do what you did to document the development of formal 3RR policy. What do you think? &#0151; JEREMY 14:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I was surprised
Timothy, I was *so* surprised by your decision in removing the tags from Dhimmi article (Especially noting that you have watched this article for awhile and particularly noting the Islamonline.net issue). Can you please explain? --Aminz 04:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Because I'm not clear what the issue is at this point. The last one, I thought, was the abolition section, which Merzbow has addressed.  Islami replaced he tag, but his involvement was solicited by Faisal to begin with; I don't remember seeing him on the talk page, or have any idea what his issue is.  I'll take another look in a bit.Timothy Usher 04:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is just hard for me to believe that you "are not clear what the issue is at this point." --Aminz 04:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Aminz,


 * The other issue was the Malik quote and the "humiliation quotes" - however, no one was disputing their factual accuracy of the latter, so why is there a totally disputed tag? What facts were inaccurate?  The other issues were the inclusion of Bless sins' "Dhimmis lived in mansions" stuff cited to book on an art history.  Now, that's ridiculous.  But even were it not, its non-inclusion can't make what's there factually inaccurate - at most, non-neutral.


 * The Faisal issues are much more foundational. I'm not sure he'll ever be pleased with a scholarly approach to the material, yet that's exactly what we're supposed to be doing.


 * It looks as if you've written a lot more on the talk page. I'll take a look.Timothy Usher 05:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Timothy, the Dhimmi article issue is a pretty old one. Many editors have had objections to this article. Referring to all their arguments as "non credible" is inappropriate. Removal of the tags should be discussed on the talk page first, especially this article. We had an unsuccessful mediation over this article. I am sure you knew that your edit will be followed by a revert war. But this shows your certainty & desire to push your pov. Otherwise you could have simply asked all editors for their opinions on the talk page. --Aminz 07:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Aminz, someone put it back (someone who doesn't show up on the talk page), and have I taken it down again? Please stop with the allegations of bad faith.Timothy Usher 07:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I said you had the "desire" to push your pov "when you removed the tag", not that you actually pushed it. Others did it for you of course. Okay, I will not push my argument anymore. --Aminz 07:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My main "POV" is that the scholarship of those whose work is constantly under attack is a lot more impressive than Bless sins' egregious mischaracterization of sources, as is plainly shown by the discussion that occured while you were gone.


 * Another of my "POVs" is that Faisal's objections boil down to, it reflects badly on Islamic history - or in his words, is part of the propaganda against Islam - which, when you think about it, isn't a legitimate objection at all. There is a good reason why there is no "Propaganda against Islam" tag (although I recall that Raphael1 created one - like several other of his creations, it was deleted).  Additionally, Faisal has a direct personal interest here, as he supports the revival of the Caliphate under Sharia - convincing Dhimmi that this would be harmless to them would serve this purpose, would it not?'


 * Yet another "POV" I like to push is that Islami has had no involvement here other than to respond to Faisal's religiously-motivated solicitation.


 * So you'll forgive me if, in this context, I see Pecher, Tickle me, Merzbow, etc.'s work worthy of support.Timothy Usher 07:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I'll send you an email tomorrow. I see your point brought up here and in the Dhimmi talk page, but I am very sleepy now! --Aminz 09:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Its okay
No Worries buddy :) - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayjg#west_bank_barrier


 * Yeah, I saw that. Both pages are already on my watchlist.  Some of this material is hideously biased.Timothy Usher 06:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

this edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_West_Bank_barrier&curid=367929&diff=58538829&oldid=58537957

The current number is actully 5000. 49,000 is based on projected route which have changed considerably several times. more recent UN reports confirm what I wrote above. Zeq 07:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As you know, Zeq, I think this Israeli/Sexual/Gender/etc. apartheid absurd. However, I'm a little uncomfortable about the appearance of solicitation.  I understand how frustrating this must be for you.  Are you allowed to post on the talk page of the article?Timothy Usher 07:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

user pages
I know, Timothy, and I was not attacking you, I meant to say that the topic should be moved to WP:VP/P at this point regardless of who brought it up. I realize that all sorts of things may be perceived as offensive. That's why we need common sense. Painting Islamic symbols on a pig may be offensive to Muslims only, but the point is that there is no reason to do so except for an attempt to piss off Muslims. While saying "I try to be a good Christian" may be offensive to some pagans or atheists, but the statement is not as a rule designed to insult people but made in good faith. Be that as it may, discussing it has no place on WP:AN/I. dab (&#5839;) 12:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not think Faisal's contributions are particularly helpful. Big deal, that goes for about 90% of Wikipedians. I do not think, however, that his contributions are made in bad faith, or that they are trollish or disruptive, and while I am all for more discipline on article talk pages, I don't see a connection to his userpage. Sure, he declares his religious bias. Which would be evident anyway from him PBUH'ing us on Talk:Muhammad. His talkpage actually marks him as a good faith Muslim editor, even if challenged by a language barrier, as opposed to a Muslim zealot throw-away trolling account. dab (&#5839;) 12:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Israel Shamir
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Israel_shamir_-_anti-semitism_and_personal_attacksHomey 21:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Homey, I'll take a closer look. What little I've seen doesn't look good.Timothy Usher 21:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Islam sentiment
Please take a look at this brave new category. Pecher Talk 08:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw it. Might it be better titled Category:Critics of Islam?Timothy Usher 08:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Timothy Usher, you do yourself a disservice when without proper research you make this kind of edit with that kind of editorial commentary. This discussion from well before the Category:People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad existed should show you the fallacy of your statement. You're continuing to disappoint me. Netscott 09:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies, Netscott, I wasn't aware of that. I was only aware of the discussions which took place today.  I'm rather uncomfortable with this whole categories thing, as I've posted elsewhere.


 * If it makes you feel any better, I'm a little disappointed with you as well.Timothy Usher 09:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well there was a link right in the very history of that cat, mentioning the reason for it's origin and as well there was the intial talk mentioning it. Your edit seemed very much like meat-puppetry on behalf of User:Pecher who'd just made the exact same edit as yourself. Netscott 09:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like you, Netscott, felt dissatisfied with being insufficiently offensive in your first comment, so you've decided to heap more insults on Timothy. Pecher Talk 09:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about Pecher, you solicited interaction relative to that category from Timothy Usher here on his talk page and he responded by duplicating your exact edit. Hello? Netscott 09:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, he didn't point out Category:Critics of Islam to me, did he? These have all been discussed today in various places which are on my watchlist, as you know (place Illuminati symbol here).  Like many messages to my talk, Pecher's post did prompt me to act now as opposed to later, but it's scarcely blind meatpuppetry as you'd have it.  Though I fully understand why, given recent history, you feel compelled to say so.  Let's bury the hatchet, alright?  This is a very counterproductive conflict.Timothy Usher 10:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Proposed new category (for those who've followed the more unproductive threads on Muslim Guild): Category:Anti-Semitism feeling towards anon editors.Timothy Usher 10:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm up for burying the hatchet and only made my earlier solicitation/meatpuppetry comments about your editing relative to User:Pecher based upon the editorial commentary I pointed out to you. Netscott 10:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that I see all this, I find this comment somewhat ironic. BhaiSaab talk 15:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A WP:SPAM vs. solicitation education
Timothy Usher, I have noticed that you are repeatedly referring to WP:SPAM when counciling others not to solicit on Wikipedia. Due to this fact it is clear to me now that you do not in fact understand what spamming is and specifically how WP:SPAM applies to editors on Wikipedia. The only parts of WP:SPAM that approach correspondance to your citing of it are found in the internal spamming section. These parts are specifically:


 * By internal spamming, we mean cross-posting of messages to a large number of user talk pages, by Wikipedians, in order to promote Wikipedia matters such as elections, disputes, discussions, etc.

and in particular this second part:


 * Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view.

The problem is that the this second part hinges upon the first. By all means read over that section of WP:SPAM and cite it accordingly when you encounter behavior that meets such criteria (as I did here to User:Mystìc). When users like User:Azate respond to inquiries made of them regarding given articles (ie: Fethullah Gülen) and you label their responses as spam you cause offense and your actions are sooner interpreted as bad faith moves. I absolutely agree with you that it is bad form for a Wikipedian to solicit a fellow user who may happen to support his view to assist in prosecuting an edit or POV war against an opposing editor but when admonishing a given editor for such behavior please do a bit of research to properly cite a corresponding policy/guideline in accord with your admonishment. Thanks. Netscott 14:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Muslim Guild
If you're so bent on badmouthing the guild, why not make moves to have it deleted altogether? BhaiSaab talk 23:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You badmouth it yourself, BhaiSaab, when you inadvertently concede that the Guild is a partisan edit-ring. Timothy Usher 23:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I never did any such thing. How do you know it's not Karl who's partisan? BhaiSaab talk 23:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Non sequitur, BhaiSaab.Timothy Usher 23:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The Muslim Guild does its best to make sure all articles adhere to the highest of NPOV standards. :) BhaiSaab talk 00:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

A better example of a non-neutral user page
I see your point, but I think user:ibrahim faisal is not necessarily the best example. One that I noticed a while ago was User:Ramallite, which I think is much more comparable and, as best as I can tell, has passed without notice. There you have statements that are not only non-neutral but also offensive.--Mantanmoreland 02:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know how Ramallite edits, but Faisal's example was salient because his contributions continue the tone of his talk page, advocating the reestablishment of the Caliphate, under Islamic law, while singing the praises of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), demanding that images of him be removed, etc.Timothy Usher 02:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --- Faisal 14:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * His edits are along the lines of his biased, offensive user page. There are even worse examples. On that very same noticeboard I couldn't help but see that editors are agonizing over User: Israel shamir, who appears to be the noted anti-Semite of the same name. He has no user page, but apparently his edits -- which include editing his own page, contrary to WP:VAIN -- are anti-Semitic polemics. It is by no means certain that anything will be done about him, while the only issue with FairNBalanced is how long a stretch he gets in the slammer.--Mantanmoreland 02:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I direct your attention to the discussion of the Conservative Noticeboard to see how standards are inconsistently applied according to similar political distinctions: LGBT = good, Islamism = good, Conservatism = bad, Catholicism = bad. I guess we're still waiting for the verdict on anti-Semitism.Timothy Usher 02:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed. As for anti-Semitism, the verdict is that anti-Semitism is a vague rumor that requires a great deal more proof than any other recognized phenomnenon. Or at least that has been my experience. One editor said it was "unproven" that Henry Ford was anti-Semitic. My hero, Monsignor John M. Oesterreicher, is rolling in his grave. --Mantanmoreland 02:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll post on ANI shortly regarding this matter.Timothy Usher 03:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

arbcom
I don't understand what you're saying here. What is "unseemly"?--Irishpunktom\talk 13:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is unchivalrous and unseemly to kick someone when they're down.Timothy Usher 13:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I know what the word means! - What I don't know is how asking that question is unseemly, or is "kicking when down"--Irishpunktom\talk 14:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * IPT, your posts, whether intentionally or otherwise, might be perceived as taunting him. That's probably not our intention, but please be sensitive to that interpretation, because others are taking it that way.Timothy Usher 14:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would add that his continued feigned expressions of ignorance that he was engaged in this conduct do not help matters.--Mantanmoreland 14:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK - I really resent yours and Mantanmoreland refering to me as "trolling, taunting, gratuitous" - It was a simple question, I still don't really see how it taunts him - It was a simple question. Would you two have acted so aggressively had another uninvolved editor acted this way, or is it that I'm Muslim? --Irishpunktomtalk 14:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Whaa? IPT, I didn't say those things about you, only that your post "whether intentionally or otherwise, might be perceived as taunting him.  I defended you with the evading your block while editting mainspace thing, remember?  I think you're a pretty decent guy, but also that Tom has you pegged with the cost of doing business thing.  I've no desire to add to that.  Just leave FNB alone; he's been through enough for a lot less disruption than some have caused.Timothy Usher 14:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A second "whaaa"? I didn't even know you are "Muslim." Actually I thought from your user name that you're a son of Erin, like me. I was responding solely to your conduct and have no idea who you are.--Mantanmoreland 14:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Right then, how about we drop it - I was not taunting him, at least not intentionally... He is a user I've never really heard of, and is an honotary meber of a Guild I've been a part of for quite some time. I don't know why he is an honorary member, considering its open to all, and I thought of asking him. I, still, have no idea why, that is taunting, trolling, gratuatious, etc. Also, Mantanmoreland, being Muslim does not invalidate, somehow, mo tír.--Irishpunktom\talk 15:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. I've no reason to think you aware of the punishment to which he's been subjected over the past days on WP:ANI.  You'd never struck me as the vindictive sort in this way.  So yes, as you say, let's all drop it.  No harm done.Timothy Usher 15:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Category for deletion vote you may be interested in
Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_16 --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, nice bit of solicitation there. Netscott 21:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Miscarriage of justice
I just hate to see a good editor make a mistake, get bounced on and kicked out. --Mantanmoreland 14:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
Hi, Timothy. You seem to have misread the unblock refusal reason I gave FairNBalanced, and thereby come to the conclusion that my reason wasn't very good. You're still free to think it not good, obviously, but I'm sure you'll agree, on a second look, that I didn't say what you thought I did. Please compare my most recent ANI post. Bishonen | talk 16:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC).


 * Okay, I see. Yes, I agree that the activities at Abu Ghraib were disgusting.  No, I don't agree that his editorial statement lies unacceptably outside the mainstream of contemporary discourse.  Yes, I agree it shouldn't be in userspace.  No, I don't agree that this is any worse than what's been allowed on other userpages.


 * It's been noted that FNB got this photo from another user's page, where it's marshalled as part of a general indictment against the United States, which he accused of having staged the 9/11 attacks, as well as orchestrating terrorism in Iraq. Is that disgusting?  I think so.  What do you think?Timothy Usher 22:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That question suggests you didn't read my post on ANI any more carefully than the original "reason", as it wasn't about the disgustingness of Abu Ghraib, it was about the disgustingness of treating Abu Ghraib as a joke. In other words, it was about the disgustingness of something FairNBalanced did, and therefore relevant to rejecting his unblock request. And I also, in another post that I linked you to there, already answered the question you ask about the photo on the other userpage. You know, I'm finding this attempt at dialogue very frustrating, I seem to be repeating myself like Sisyphos. I assume you read my words in good faith, but I guess we're just not attuned to each other. Good-bye. Bishonen | talk 01:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC).
 * Okay. Sorry to have bothered you.Timothy Usher 01:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

User:His Excellency
Why are you following him everywhere and pointing out his block log? That's wikistalking. BhaiSaab talk 17:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, your edits on Wikiproject:Islam are not supported by consensus. Please stop making them. BhaiSaab talk 17:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Amibidhrohi/His excellency is popping up on pages I've editted before. It's especally silly to pop up on ANI and argue for an indef ban on another user for incivility.  His block log is quite relevant in this context.Timothy Usher 21:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be what is called ad hominem. I never posted images celebrating torture the way that bigot friend of yours did. I never posted an image of a pig with the name of God drawn on to it. Behind your masquerade of lawyering is simple American manic-conservative bigotry. The pattern of your edits show that. The fact that you've tried baiting people with sentiments similar to yours shows that. Your flame baiting on the Wikiproject:Islam shows that. You're not fooling anyone. His Excellency... 22:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem is not a fallacy where the validity of a statement can be said to rely upon an appeal to the credibility of its source, rather than on a logical propositon which can be analyzed in isolation. Otherwise we wouldn't need any citations, right?  And I'm afraid that where civility is concerned, you are not a reliable source.Timothy Usher 22:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Despite H.E.'s use of a new username is it not sooner evident that his indication of the nature of his new user name through posting a tag announcing it not a sign of good faith? Netscott 22:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't accuse him of sockpuppetry. Though I am curious why he then took this notice down, and, more generally, why he changed his username to begin with.Timothy Usher 22:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, TU. He was blocked for that, correct? ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen has it right
He was amazingly dead on in his commentary relative to the concept of Sisyphus. Again, If you'd just do some research! you'd realize that User:FairNBalanced is just the latest editor I've taken to task. I did the same thing with User:Germen who ultimately left the project for his disruptive and anti-Islamic actions. Also you seem to fail to recognize as the first responder to User:Tony Sidaway's banning proposal I actually was balanced in User:FairNBalanced's regard and in fact included defensive tones relative to him. My only wish in my initial response to Tony Sidaway's banning proposal was that I had done like User:Amibidhrohi did and actually pointed out that User:FairNBalanced was deliberately involving himself with Muslim topics in relation to his user page to really drive home his hateful messages. It's your equivocation of User:FairNBalanced's hate speech that I take issue with. It is wrong for anyone to view your efforts in that sense as being misguided. Your words are sooner embracing such hateful displays and that in my book is extremely unacceptable. Netscott 08:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone's got to put a check on your self-appointment as the sole arbitrer of righteousness.Timothy Usher 08:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you continue defending hate speech relative to Islam you are going encounter further strong resistance to your involvement in the Wikipedia project. This I assure you. Netscott 08:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hate speech you define a wilful defiance of Islamic taboos, such as the sacredness of the Arabic word "Allah" and the uncleanliness of pigs. I agree it's flamebaiting, because someone else has an arbitrary (so it seems to the flamebaiter) hang up, and there's a conscious desire to push their buttons.  It's more like Piss Christ  and the linked Cyde page than it is like lynching, as you'd suggested.  Such flamebaiting is bad, but I'm not clear that it's Hate, and I'm not going to sign onto that indictment.Timothy Usher 08:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's pathetic that I have to explain this to you but since you're claiming that User:FairNBalanced's pattern of displays were not hateful I'll do my best. Such displays are hateful when one displays an image like the Image:Islamist_hypocrisy.jpg which showed a man clearly having a muslim appearance dressed as a suicide bomber and thereby tending to incite non-Musims to view those having a similar appearance as potentially being suicide bombers. Then progressing to Image:Deadzarqawi.jpg and adding commentary that says "Zarqawi meets his 72 virgins." and in so doing referencing the common Muslims belief in Houri (which again incites others to associate all Muslims with Zarqawi's acts). Then his making light of the convicted Ivan Frederick torturing of a prisoner at Abu Ghraib would tend to incite others to view Frederick's acts as acceptable towards a likely Muslim. And the final straw in this pattern of behavior was to actually directly post an image that could only have one purpose and that is to incite fury from Muslims by referring to the highly revered Allah as the highly disdained "unclean" pig. All this while expressly integrating himself into an environment where he is sure to encounter Muslims. Based upon this final post of mine in this regard I want to impress upon you that your defending of User:FairNBalanced's hateful displays is severely damaging your appearance of good faith here on Wikipedia relative to editing on topics concerning Islam and you would do very well to cease your efforts at whitewashing such displays. Netscott 09:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Mean-spirited
Your imputing acts that I've had absolutely nothing to do with of others is mean-spirited and tantamount to a personal attack. Cease your demonstrations of a lack of good faith immediately. Netscott 11:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You co-prosecuted FNB - and me - on the noticeboard with one of them, while another is all over your user talk page. You ask - no, demand - that your good faith be presumed, while that of others is perpetually in question, always subject to your minute and autocratic examination.  On both counts, I respectfully dissent.Timothy Usher
 * Further evidence of your lack of good faith relative to Muslim Wikipedians was demonstrated when you referred to Jimbo Wales (PBUH). Mocking Muslims' respectful use of Islamic honorifics. I'm seeing more and more than my estimation of your character is 100% correct. Netscott 11:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The mentality of PBUHing has no more place here than Allah pig.


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


 * Interesting, finally your true POV is unmistakably clear. As well it is equally clear why you yourself in particular take offense when Muslim Wikipedians true to their faith type out such honorifics. With this commentary here one could argue that User:Tony Sidaway's comment relative to User:FairNBalanced: "I question whether we want to allow Wikipedia to be edited at all by people who are obviously not here to write a neutral point of view encyclopedia." could be equally applicable to yourself. Netscott 11:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I never hid my assesment of Muhammad, which is entirely based upon the testimony of his admirers, Ibn Ishaq and the collecters of the Hadith.


 * There is a marked difference between attacking people and questioning what they believe, which your narrative would conflate. Let me add to the controversy by saying that I agree with Islam that Jesus is not God.  There's 2 billion more people angry with me, people you'd have it that I "hate."


 * "As well it is equally clear why you yourself in particular take offense when Muslim Wikipedians true to their faith type out such honorifics." - Well, now, what's that supposed to mean?Timothy Usher 11:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your opinions are not in question, no one's are... it's your expression of them (particularly the manner in which you express them) and your lack of respect that is sooner clear evidence relative to your repetitve demonstrations of a lack of good faith. You tried imputing User:BhaiSaab's editing on myself when I have already counciled him about such editing relative to other topics concerning Islam. What is funny is that User:Irishpunktom tried to do the same thing to me relative to User:Karl Meier and his infamous link... I explained to him the mean-spirited nature of his doing that and he actually had the decency to rectify his earlier incorrect insinuation. Netscott 11:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I don't even know who User:Amibidhrohi is and have only truly become aware of him relative to this User:FairNBalanced issue. Netscott 11:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Now you know.Timothy Usher 12:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Reported
I've already replied to your "report." BhaiSaab talk 00:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, there's no policy that states I can't do what I just did. Plus, with an admin leading the way, there's no problem. BhaiSaab talk 01:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've requested clarification on ANI, so we can resolve this ongoing issue.Timothy Usher 01:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Great. BhaiSaab talk 01:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strange, there appears to be a voice missing from User:Briangotts talk page relative to his following solicitatious postings (of which you were a recipient):
 * 13:35, 16 June 2006
 * 13:35, 16 June 2006
 * 13:37, 16 June 2006
 * 13:41, 16 June 2006
 * 13:55, 16 June 2006

Netscott 10:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't much like the tone of your message. But I'll take a look.  Briangotts' talk page isn't on my watchlist, so I can't have known what happens there unless someone tells me.


 * As you well know, a number of pages where the spam I'd reported appeared are on my watchlist - in fact nearly all of them.


 * Having taken a look, it's obviously spamming. The best solution is to band together to fight it on "both sides", and on pages designed to facilitate it by gathering like-minded editors in one place a la Conservative noticeboard, LGBT noticeboard and Muslim Guild.  Join the report of BhaiSaab, and add Briangott's.  If nothing is done, why shouldn't we start doing it ourselves?  In fact we'd almost be obliged, as obviously reasoned discussion cannot carry the day against partisan vote-stacking.  And it casts results tainted by it - including whatever comes of this particular discussion - into doubt.Timothy Usher 10:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:ISLAM should just "envelop" the Muslim Guild... while I generally agree with your sentiments regarding the Guild and solicitatious behavior I seriously doubt you'd have questioned a neutral post regarding the creation of it on WP:ISLAM. Am I wrong? Netscott 10:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is strange in that I've seen how quick you are to whip out a citation of WP:SPAM in terms of Muslim editors' pages but not so quick for those who fall outside of describing themselves a Muslim. I even called the solicitatious nature of User:Briangotts's post to your talk page fully expecting you to council him about that... but did you? No. Netscott 10:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You are turning my talk page into a battleground again, Netscott. Chill.  I'm not really sure if you're aware how you come across, but it's pretty depressing to hear words of conciliation followed by renewed sneering attacks.  I've posted what I posted, and as of now it seems that you're the one with nothing to say about BhaiSaab's spam.  I proposed we join together as a matter of princple and I've done so.  At this point, it's you who must substantiate your pretense of being an honest broker.Timothy Usher 10:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I believe you know where I stand in terms of my veiw regarding your lack of good faith. My holding such a view makes it difficult to work with someone who corresponds to that view. Netscott 10:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC) You draw no sympathy from me when you take a tone like this on BhaiSaab's own talk page. Even when I discussed User:Mystìc's rather egregious example of spamming I took no such tone. Netscott 11:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Netscott, you're the one associating with editors known for anti-Semitic links and comments, not me. I'd hoped when I'd pointed it out to you the other night, you'd step away from it, but now you're stepping right back into the thick of it to eliminate a category which documents the murder of who?  See BhaiSaab's link for further clarification.Timothy Usher 11:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I hate to say this Timothy Usher but with your attempts at whitewashing of User:FairNBalanced's examples of hateful displays and your lack of hesitation to "report" (ie: not even a warning) Muslim editors and your lack of apology regarding false accusations of spammery I'm beginning to think that we're not going to generally be able to work together. Since this is the case I will be extremely quick to expose hypocracy when I witness it. I told you that you would encounter strong resistance previously... I wasn't kidding. Also your insinuations that I'm somehow anti-Semitic is asinine. When you say that it makes me want to whip out that rather controversial term "Islamophobia" and use it to describe you (you must know of what my view is regarding that word so you should also be aware of how ridiculous it is of me to be talking in terms of it... which should explain my view of your use of Anti-semite in my regard). Just like I expressed how despite User:FairNBalanced made hateful displays he did contribute positively to the project I can also hold the same view in other senses relative to other editors who might hold views that I am 100% not in accord with. The world is not all black or all white... it is gray. Watch the move Crash for a rather good lesson in this sense. Netscott 11:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've discussed spam on many an occasion with BhaiSaab, as you know.Timothy Usher 11:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, what I know is that you previously had no clue how WP:SPAM (specifically "internal spamming") applied to editors and as a result you falsely cited it too often in your admonishing editors against "spamming". Ridiculous. Netscott 11:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your comments are baseless. Pointing out that a clause "don't solicit" has a meaning applicable to circumstances not explicitly addressed by the guidelines (Guild posts, meatpuppetry) doesn't constitute ignorance of the meaning of internal spamming.  It doesn't cross your mind that someone might be fully aware of every word in that policy and yet still find that clause applicable?  See Jurisprudence.  Your constant presumptions of abject ignorance, among many other things, have become tiresome.Timothy Usher 11:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, baseless? Did you not falsely cite "spamming" in User:Azate's regard when he responded on my talk page to a post I made on his talk page? You know where I stand on the Guild question so when you keep mentioning that it's as if you're trying to convert the already converted (makes me think of Sisyphus again). When your behavior demonstrates that you have not properly researched a given subject prior to involving yourself in it makes the term ignorant particularly applicable. Netscott 11:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza
I'm not entirely sure why you objected to my removal of the Banu Qurayza article from the People_killed_by_or_on_behalf_of_Muhammad category. I personally thought I made a valid and justified decision for it's decategorisation, as the article itself clearly indicates that the order for the killing of the tribe came from Sa'ad ibn Mua'dh (a friend of Banu Qurayza that was appointed to judge over them). I found that this fact meant that the article couldn't meet the criteria for the article to be listed in the category - "This category groups people reputed to have been killed by Muhammad, or executed, assasinated or otherwise killed at his request during the formative years of Islamic history." Please explain yourself. Wikipidian 03:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Muhammad was the one who put them "on trial" (for defending themselves) and accepted the judgement. It's sort of a stretch to suppose that the judge who ordered their beheading was their "friend," don't you think?Timothy Usher 03:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Timothy Usher, I'm afraid it's you that streching things - nowhere in the wiki articles will you find that the Prophet (pbuh) put the Banu Qurayza on 'trial,' on the contrary he only suggested to the Aws that Sa'ad ibn Mua'dh be appointed to judge over the matter after they pleaded to him (please note, he could have easily pronounced over the matter himself).  Secondly, I only referred to Sa'ad ibn Mua'dh as a friend of the Qurayza because his article refers to him as such. Wikipidian 03:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, so, even the Jews friend agreed all the males should be beheaded, while the women and children were enslaved. Who could argue with such a ruling?  Peace be upon him, indeed.Timothy Usher 13:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories
Timothy, I can create a category titled "Enlightened Jews who converted to Islam". Why do you support controversial categories? Is it going to bring us closer together? --Aminz 04:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a category Category:Converts to Islam. Sure, a Category:Jewish converts to Islam category would be fine.  Dhimmi aside, it's actually a pretty interesting question.  What contemporary figures would belong here?


 * I acknowledge that the category is a little awkward, but I really dislike the constant coordinated POV-swarming. The reason proposed for the deletion was simply that reflects badly upon Muhammad, which of course it does.  Should this be highlighted?  I don't know.  But the way this whole thing went down, a post on the Guild etc., is really unfair to editors who aren't members or don't share the viewpoints which prevail over there.  The category is clearly not designed to bring people together, but to highlight ugly facts of history.  We can ask if the study of history generally (I think it was Churchill who called history "one damned thing after another") brings us together on the same grounds.  Is it wise to cover up past conflict for the sake of lessening sectarian resentment today?  Here's something I've posted on this serious and worthy question .Timothy Usher 04:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Answer
Please answer this question: How do Muslims "view" or "justify" (whatever you may want to choose) Muhammad's warfare? --Aminz 04:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Like ships passing in the night...of course there are many views here; I just posted one such account on your talk page.Timothy Usher 04:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look at it in a minute. I am slow you know. --Aminz 04:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please have a look at . --Aminz 04:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, please note that it is Muslims who are supposed to act upon their image of Muhammad. I think I have addressed your post "In any case, there are already people running around slaughtering innocents in the name of returning to the original values of Muhammad and his companions." to some extent. I'll have a look at the account of Battle of Trench in a minute. --Aminz 04:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

To complete my answer, here is an excerpt from an article written by Michael Sells:

The plaintiffs boast that Jesus never commanded his followers to kill the unbelievers but told them to leave punishment for the afterlife. But scriptures relate to violence in complex ways. During the Inquisition, killing a heretic was considered to be more compassionate than allowing him to lead others to damnation. Gospel passages that have helped inspire compassion have also been used to justify persecution of Jews. The Koran is read by the Taliban and by the Muslims who were persecuted by the Taliban. Verses that inspired Gandhi are cited by those who recently massacred unarmed Muslims in India.

I guess I have addressed your question. --Aminz 04:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Will read. Thanks.Timothy Usher 04:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow is doing exceptional work
Timothy, Merzbow is doing a great job in the criticism of Islam article. I am astonished!! --Aminz 07:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, could you please add fact tags to the places you dispute. Give us time please. The whole article suffers from lack of sources. I am going to add back the material you removed and add the fact tag to them. --Aminz 08:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How much time? The things I removed appear to consist of unreliable sources plus original argument.  As you see, I've treated both "POV's" equally.Timothy Usher 08:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A couple of days; but okay if you would like, you can move them to the talk page. It doesn't really matter. --Aminz 08:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is some passage from Islamonline.net:

It should be noted that in the hot regions, it’s normal for a girl to attain maturity at a very early age. Thus the case is totally different from that which does exist in the cold regions where a girl does not attain puberty before 21 [Physicians maintain that the age of puberty in the hot regions normally ranges from 9 to 16]. At all rates, it should be stressed that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, on marrying `Aisha, never aimed at fulfilling a lust or satisfying a desire; rather, his aim was to strengthen his relation with the most beloved Companion of his.

My point is that we "can" find sources, and even better sources than islamonline.net --Aminz 08:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

IslamOnline isn't a reliable source for such findings of biology. In case this isn't obvious on its face, consider their claim that in cold regions, girls reach puberty at age 21! And who are these "physicians" who "maintain"? 9-16 is quite a range.Timothy Usher 09:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a Muslim answer, I didn't say it is true. --Aminz 09:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * While I agree that this line of argument is medically very dubious, it's a widespread response to this criticism, so for now I would lean toward representing it in the article. - Merzbow 22:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Users
Look at the contributions of this group of users: What is it if not unabashed sockpuppetry? Pecher Talk 13:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Publicola
 * User:Saadsaleem
 * User:Right1
 * User:Genesys 4
 * Careful, now, Pecher, this might get turned against you. Why are you reporting these sockpuppets?  Why do you not report Mormon sockpuppets?  Etc.Timothy Usher 13:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.
I know we often disagree on content and have even had some personal friction, but I am glad to see that you are entirely able to rise above such petty issues to do the right thing. If more editors had your level of personal integrity, then Wikipedia would foster an atmosphere of mutual respect that would allow us to work together in good faith, regardless of our differing views. Al 16:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Those are kind words, and rare. Thank you, Alienus.Timothy Usher 10:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Opinion requested
Say, you've been at Wikipedia longer than me. Are you familiar with Iranian Wikipedians' notice board? I just stumbled on it and it strikes me as similar to the Conservative notice board that just got deep-sixed. Am I mistaken? What do you think?--Mantanmoreland 23:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
I haven't found mediation to be all that helpful or successful. An RfC is sometimes useful. Jayjg (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Tim, my experience with mediation has likewise not given me much confidence in their success rate. However, my experience with RFC's is even more negative. It seems that they're all too often a vehicle for running good (or at least redeemable) users off Wikipedia.  Did you know, for example, that there's a pending RFC against me by Jayjg's buddy, JakeW?  Previously, the various people in the pro-circumcision faction have succeeding in eliminating two anti-circumcision editors, and I'm being lined up as the third. So, given this, you might understand my negative view of RFC's.  Al  01:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why Alienus is commenting here, other than Harassment, nor what he means by it, except as one of his typical violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Rest assured, there is no "pro-circumcision faction"; that's just an ad-hominem claim Alienus uses in his attempts to dismiss those who disagree with policy violations. I'm also not sure what he means by "a pending RFC against me by Jayjg's buddy, JakeW"; it's the first I've heard of any of that. Jayjg (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, that wasn't very impressive, throwing civility policies at Alienus out of one side of your mouth while bad-mouthing him out of the other. I don't even care whether you're right; we can keep the discussion at a professional level.  You and Alienus are both working to improve the encyclopedia, and the number one impediment to this project's success is when we fail to see that in each other.  If Alienus fails to Assume Good Faith, that in no way justifies your following suit.  The only rule is respect, and the only proper resonse to disrespect is more respect.  Without that, you'll never find RfCs, or mediation, or any other dispute resolution process helpful, because you'll still be shooting yourself in the foot every time you fail to respect your fellow editors.


 * Timothy, I think mediation is a good idea, as long as the parties involved are willing to acknowledge that the other party might be coming from somewhere valid. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't failed to assume good faith, I've simply mentioned quite blatant behavior. Jayjg (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if that was most civil and respectful tone you could muster, I guess I'll just say good job. I'm still not impressed. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you were more familiar with the specifics of the situation, I rather think you would be. Jayjg (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm more familiar for you to think I am, and if you think there's ever an excuse for you to be less than 100% respectful of every contributor here, you're wrong. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine, since I was not disrespectful of him, though your tone with me is rather less than respectful. Jayjg (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right. I apologize for my tone.  I disagree that your statement, "that's just an ad-hominem claim Alienus uses in his attempts to dismiss those who disagree with policy violations," is an example of respect, as I understand it.  It strikes me as rather contemptuous and poisonous, but it can be difficult to gauge tone online.  I'm really surprised if you think that's a cool way to talk about someone.  How would you feel if someone said that about you?
 * I also dispute your suggestion that "if I knew better," I would somehow find that kind of speech appropriate. I consider dispespect to be disrespect, and I don't know of a context that makes it the right thing to do. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not stopping by earlier - just, I've not been too involved in WP lately - and it seems you've done just fine with this section on your own! I consider all three of you friends and colleagues, and you're each welcome on my talk page any time. Though, as you see, I don't always answer right away.Timothy Usher 10:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI
Watt writes:

It is sometimes asserted that Muhammad's character ( declined after he went to Medina, but there are no solid grounds for this view. It is based on too facile a use of the principal that all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The allegations of moral defects are attached to incidents belonging to the Medinan and not the Meccan period, but according to the interpretation of these incidentsgiven in this book they marked no failure in Muhammad to live to his ideals and no lapse from his moral principles. The persecuted preacher of Mecca was no less a man of his time than the ruler of Medina. If nothing is recorded of the preacher to show us how different his attitude was from that of nineteenth-century Europe, it does not follow that his ideals were any loftier (by our standards) than those of the reforming ruler. The opposite is more likely to be the case since the preacher was nearer to the pagan background. In both Meccan and Medinan periods Muhammad's contemporaries looked on him as a good and upright man, and in the eyes of history he is a moral and social reformer.

So much must be said in fairness to Muhammad when he is measured against the Arabs of his time. Muslims, however, claim that he is a model of conduct and character for all mankind. In so doing they present him for judgement according to the standards of enlightened world opinion. Though the world is increasingly becoming one world, it has so far paid scant attention to Muhammad as a moral exemplar. Yet because Muslims are numerous, it will sooner or later have to consider seriously whether from the life and teaching of Muhammad any principles are to be learnt which will contribute to the moral development of mankind.

. ..

Also,

From the standpoint of Muhammad's time, then, the allegations of treachery and sensuality cannot be maintained. His contemporaries did not find him morally defective in any way. On the contrary, some of the acts criticized by the modern Westerner show that Muhammad's standards werehigher than those of his time. In his day and generation he was a social reformer, even a reformer in the sphere of morals. He created a new system of social security and a new family structure, both of which were a vast improvement on what went before. By taking what was best in the morality of the nomad and adapting it for settled communities, he established a religious and social framework for the life of many races of men. That is not the work of a traitor or ' an old lecher'.

--Aminz 05:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Similarly I think those part of Torah which are related to the rules of war were not immoral according to the standard of the time they were written. Best, --Aminz 07:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I think we should not forget that the moral standards also depend on our living environment (both directly and indirectly), science advances, etc etc; + we have a tendency, I believe, to think that our moral standards are better than those of the past, true in many cases but we naturally tend to accept it as an assumption even before giving it a thought. --Aminz 07:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem of course (if I may interject on a fascinating exchange) is not that Muhammad committed acts that seem to us, in our day and age, to be atrocities; the problem is rather that Muhammad's actions are regarded as blameless and worthy of emulation by a very large number of people in a manner unparalleled by any other historical person. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly you may interject; like Aminz, you're always welcome here. The Watt excerpt Aminz forwarded makes that very point.Timothy Usher 19:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Banu Nadir mediation questions
Please help Banu Nadir mediation succeed by providing your opinions in answer to your column on the Talk:Banu Nadir (referring to the questions in the preceeding section.) With luck, this will help narrow the focus of the dispute. Publicola 08:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it might be a day or two, if that's alright(?)Timothy Usher 08:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncivil and provocative language in edit summaries
Thanks for making an effort to archive a section from WP:ANI. This isn't necessary because a bot takes care of all archiving.

However the language you use in the edit summaries is unacceptable:


 * 08:38, 21 June 2006 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (archiving last week's two-minute hate - fun while it lasted)
 * 08:37, 21 June 2006 Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive109 (archiving WP two-minute hate circle jerk of self-righteousness)

Please don't use uncivil and provocative language, particularly in edit summaries. --Tony Sidaway 09:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that you've reposted them on my talk page, and I'm reading them anew, I agree these summaries were a little over the top, and I'm sorry for subjecting you to them. I'll try to do a better job of keeping my feelings to myself.  I usually do, and probably will.


 * Also, thanks for your recognition of my effort to archive stale information. I thought the bot might have been broken.Timothy Usher 09:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Re spelling: apparently, either works. Sorry again, guys.Timothy Usher 19:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks again for the help with archiving. --Tony Sidaway 19:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey, I appreciate it. It's a rough task, and I've made few friends to say the least, but these people need to be on the same page if they're ever going to work together. --InShaneee 20:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Battle_of_Hunayn
You removed all of the content that was in the article at this point. Is even the battle infobox there wrong? Isn't some part of the battle infobox salvageable? Please take a look and see if there is anything salvageable... or, if you know of a good source to add a little background and at least get the dates and numbers pinned down. gren グレン 02:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You are cool with me
Absolutely no worries, I understand people often have contrasting views on controversial topics and I myself have been guilty of losing my cool (or acting stupidly as is most often the case!) on a few occasions. Thanks for taking the time for leaving some nice words on my talk page. Wikipidian 19:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)