Efforts to alter the Robert Spencer article from the "consensus" version seem to have gone into high gear again. I wanted to thank you for your prompt reversions there in recent days, and also ask for your continued help. Dy-no-miite 17:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Some people aren't kind, but ohers -- like you -- are. A real mitzvah. It is truly appreciated. Zora 15:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I hope this does not mean that you want to revert the article. -- Aminz 10:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I am going to sleep(It is 3AM here). I'll get back to discussion tomorrow. -- Aminz 10:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Glad you like the new ones.Now we have four display options as follows:
I'll get back to the Hadith templates sometime today. Timothy Usher 17:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Dear Pecher, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ← Humus sapiens ну? 02:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC) |
and intentions to genocide the jews in Israel/Palestine:
http://www.ww4report.com/node/1845
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=mallmann+germany+mufti
1) Template:Quran-usc has been altered in two respects:
2) The “range display” problem is still not solved - more information coming soon.
3) Template:Bukhari-usc is operative, with three variables (volume, book, hadith).
Timothy Usher 07:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Pecher, thought you might find this interesting.I appreciate your contributions to the Luther/Antisemitism related pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies_%28Martin_Luther%29#Luther.27s_Hatred_of_Jews_as_a_Race Doright 04:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Pecher,
For a variety of reasons discussed at length on the talk page, I editted:
" Muslims believe that the Qur'ān is the literal word of God (Arabic Allah) and the culmination of God's revelation to mankind as revealed to Muhammad, the final prophet of humanity, over a period of twenty-three years through the angel Jibril ( Gabriel)."
to:
Muslims believe that the Qur'ān is the literal word of God (Arabic Allah) as revealed to Muhammad over a period of twenty-three years through the angel Gabriel ( Jibril)."
It's been reverted.Wonder if you'd be willing to take a look at this, if you have time? Timothy Usher 07:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It's more about style and tone.And the phrase, "...Muhammad, the final prophet of humanity..." 1) This has nothing to do with the Qur'an (in fact it's not even stated in the Qur'an) 2) one effect of such complex clauses is to disconnect big statements like this from the qualifier "Muslims believe..."There simply should not be strings of this sort.
Timothy Usher 08:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure? I think I have only reverted twice. -- Aminz 08:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I saw that; I'm too involved in the issue myself to unblock him. Maybe an uninvolved admin will take it up. Tom Harrison Talk 21:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen Cyde around those articles. It's basically up to the individual admin to decide how involved is too involved. Tom Harrison Talk 22:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern about the Jewish image.
It is however free under official Iranian copyright law, as has been stipulated on the tag accompanying it. It is from the Iranian media archives, which I have access to.-- Zereshk 15:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
This user Ceedjee uses material from a negationists site founded by a neo nazi ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_revisionism#Institute_for_Historical_Review
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discuter:Amin_al-Husseini
You can ask Zora for an indipendent translation
Franckly I am afraid of a few things that I see here on Wikipedia, specially on the french side
Pecher, please have a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation#Judaism
The original section was created by me. After a long time, Someone has expanded it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Salvation&diff=51265398&oldid=51264179 ). Can you please have a look at it and check for its accuracy.
Also, please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin#Jewish_views_of_sin
Long time ago that I saw that article, it was written by christians editors I think so I added some Jewish POV to it(here are a few of them):
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sin&diff=prev&oldid=35654592 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sin&diff=next&oldid=35657327 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sin&diff=44784532&oldid=44634679
Please have a look at this as well since I haven't seen any Jew picking this article as well. Thanks, -- Aminz 03:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I made the section: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Criticism_of_Islam&diff=51335126&oldid=51315515
Can you please help writing a summary there. I think it should be more concerned about the Islam itself rather than what Muslims have done. But if you could somehow add the Maimonides, it would begood. Thanks -- Aminz 08:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The source is Washbrook's Essay, which I have cited, although you will find similar observations in Bernard Lewis. However, you're probably right, and this should go into the criticism section. As you may have guessed I am not a fan of Said's ideas (as opposed to his politics, with which I have a lot of sympathy) but I did give due warning before expanding the section! Someone who works in literayr theory or cultural studies ought to expand the 'support & influence' section to make it more balanced. Sikandarji 13:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3246565,00.html Zeq 19:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, thank you very much for your concern about the recent unjustified block of my user account.I will be very interested to see what Sean Black has to say about all this.Anyhow, thanks. Timothy Usher 23:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, it is obvious that you are a pro-Israeli. But how do you justify hiding facts? Don't you think that telling half the truth is lying? If you think that you are protecting Israel this way, then you are wrong. Hiding important information does not serve the case of any country. It just leads to culmination of lies and then the fall begins. The first step in solving a problem is by admitting that there is a problem. be honest with yourself and tell the truth even if it costs you your life Ali Ibn Abi Taleb.
How do the merge tags disrupt the article? They serve the purpose of alerting people to the discussion.I'm sorry, but you're going to have to come up with a better reason. Fishhead64 20:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
-- Cactus.man ✍ 14:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, that line in the popular traditions section was italicized because it's basically a subtitle. I reformatted the article and now three sections have italicized subtitles. There's no nefarious Islamic scheme in the italicizing, really. Zora 19:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, can't help there. I've gradually acquired a library on early Islam, but I don't have much on later developments. A good source, if you can get access to one, would be The Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd edition. You can buy it on DVD for only $300! If you have access to a library that has one, you might find an article on al-Mawardi; the article would have references, which would take you further. Zora 20:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Which part of the Jewish state did Transjordan invade on 15 May? -- Ian Pitchford 12:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
A comment like [1] can easily be misunderstood as a personal attack. It might be better to limit your remarks on the talk pages to article content, not other users. Tom Harrison Talk 18:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey Pecher –
You opposed my last RfA in March on rationale I believe may have been related to my user page. In the time since then, I have changed my page to be more universalist (which still conforms with my personal beliefs) and removed the majority of information regarding my conversion to Islam in favor of a section on my philosophy (as well as yours if you desire). Now, I'm looking for your feedback on what you think of the redesign of the page and whether it is sufficient in quelling the March controversy over the page as well as solving the issue about possible inability to maintain a neutral point of view, especially in religion-related articles. For what it's worth, the reason I kept a condensed version of the timeline was because there were, and still are, many people who find it interesting instead of a form of proselytization. Many people have also given me positive feedback on my talk page regarding the look of the page. I personally believe that it is okay to insert individuality onto user pages, especially if it still promotes a sense of community. That is what I was going for with this current version of my user page.
Please make comments regarding the user page on my editor review page. Thanks in advance. joturn e r 14:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
You realize that if we were sitting in a bar/coffeehouse I would probably buy you a round over this discussion? No hard feelings - all in the interest of academic excellence etc. Bridesmill 22:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
You may also wish to take a look at Battle of the Trench. Timothy Usher 02:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I posted a defense of the article True Torah Jews, I would like to ask you to be so kind and read it, and than rethink your position on deletion.
Bloger 00:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marielleh
Regarding your recent edits to Dhimmi:
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Keep in mind as well that this rule does not mean that you are ENTITLED to 3 reverts a day, and you may be blocked for making fewer than four reverts if it becomes obvious that you are revert warring rather than discussing changes. -- InShaneee 00:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, are you back? Timothy Usher 09:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Pecher!
Thought you might be interested to have a look at [2]. -- Aminz 08:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Please restore my edits on Persian Jews. You are wrong, here is the letter from Simon Wiesenthal Center, look who they are calling their source:
"According to an editorial that was to appear in Friday’s National Post"
-- ManiF 20:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I asked for help regarding the issue on Islam and anti-Semitism, and I was told (see btoom of section) to talk to you on your talk page. Hopefully you won't mind.
The reason I feel the section "Historic Muslim respect for Jews" belonged is because the article in its intro. says: "The positions of the various branches of Islam on anti-Semitism and Jews". Therefore how Muslim treat Jews, is of paramount importance in the theme of anti-Semitism. Hope you will understand. Pls. respond below. Bless sins 18:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_mediation&diff=54486375&oldid=54481510 . Feel free to complete the request Zeq 06:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3ADhimmi&diff=55252272&oldid=55223005
Look again. I removed your name from the header. The reason I restored the quote was because I wanted to debunk it. It's generally poor form to delete comments in talk section, if you are unfairly singled out in the header, just change the header. The anon was bringing up points that Muslim apologists often raise in justifying the murder of the Banu Qurayza so it is important to counter them and demonstrate their absurdity. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
What do u mean please look at the talk page... «₪Mÿš†íc₪» (T) 08:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Please dont blindly revert the template just because you dont agree to it..There is clear consensus on the talk page.. JUST OPEN YOUR EYES WIDE AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT
«₪Mÿš†íc₪»
(T) 08:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Did you look at the vote count? «₪Mÿš†íc₪» (T) 08:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay who are these editors? Ask them to vote in the Consesnsus section started by one of you.. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» (T) 08:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Any opinion on this?
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild#Islamic Barnstar Award
Zeq 10:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that itis first of all intersting. especially that it invlove wikipedia I did not see that it should be "deleted" - this refelct badly on wiki. Since it made the new spapers it seem notable enough . (to me at least) Zeq 16:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Lewishussein.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot.For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/718674.html
They may or may not be reliable sources for facts about Israel. They are, however, reliable sources for what proponents of the term "Israeli apartheid" are arguing. Homey 13:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3256534,00.html
File:Atlanticpuffin4.jpg | Hello Pecher. Thank you for your support at request for adminship which ended at the overwhelming and flattering result of (160/1/0), and leaves me in a position of having to live up to a high standard of community expectation. If you need any admin assistance, feel free to ask me, and naturally, if I make any procedural mistakes, feel free to point them out and I look forward to working with you in the future, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC) |
Здравствуйте. Пока комментировать сложно. Протест там зреет давно, и нужен был только повод, чтобы он выплеснулся на улицы. Основная проблема там в том, что азербайджанцам отказывают в праве на национальную идентичность, в праве на развитие своего языка и культуры. Вы это можете видеть даже здесь, в обсуждении статей Иранский Азербайджан и Азербайджанцы. Некоторые иранские участники настаивают на том, что азербайджанцы – один из иранских этносов, хотя общеизвестно, что азербайджанцы – тюркский народ. Можно представить, что происходит в самом Иране. Конфликт видимо на этой почве, люди требуют защиты своих культурных прав. Grandmaster 18:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, have you even read the Aisha article? There's a long section, with many cites, presenting the viewpoint of those who disagree with the "six years old" story. There's even a reference to a book about the reasons the story might have been invented. AARGH! Zora 21:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
As to Zeq, another admin has now banned him from the article in question after an Arbitrator put the issue to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement (shortcut WP:AE). Homey 03:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sean_Black#May_I_suggest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sean_Black#Policy__WP:NOT
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!I am certainly not taking sides on the issue this comment is regarding, but this statement could have been worded in a more civil manner. — ßott e siηi (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
More unsourced drivel... Timothy Usher 07:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Anon has been reported at WP:ANI/3RR. Timothy Usher 09:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Anon's range has been blocked after my report.Please restore the stub - though I don't suppose I'd be blocked for undoing what is itself a violation, I'd rather not risk it. Timothy Usher 09:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The user has returned under the appropriate username User:Falso. Timothy Usher 18:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
don't bother tagging. Zeq 08:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice, really nice. You may have been technically right in having reported User:Zora for 3RR on Muhammad but I'll tell you what, you're not going to be winning much in the way of good faith "points" ( karma) which you yourself may need in the future when it comes to garnering support from other editors in your own editing. Netscott 08:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
http://www.netpano.com/newsdetail.asp?NewsID=745
Pecher I am back from my trip but you have not reply to this. Now what should I do. Put the above quote (and many other like it) in the Jizya article or wait for your reply. --- Faisal 16:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
How come you Rv my edits without discussing them at the page discussion? -- Thameen 17:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, I'm walking a tight-rope in the Islam-related articles. I'm not a Muslim. If I have a dog in the fight, it's the Western academic POV. However, I believe in the Wikipedia core values of fairness and NPOV. That means that I'm sometimes on the side of the non-Muslims, busy rooting out hagiography and PBUHs, and sometimes on the side of the Muslims, reverting Muslim-bashing. I get people from both "sides" supporting me, including people who would otherwise bitterly disagree with me, and people from both "sides" throwing brickbats at em. The people I would like to please are the ones who've shown intelligence, sincerity, and tolerance; the opinions of the others are of much less weight. So if you think you can get me to reconsider my opinions by making denigrating comments about those who "sometimes" support me, I don't think you'll succeed. Recommend a recent, exciting academic publication and you might sway me. Frex, I am rilly rilly looking forward to some word from Gerd R. Puin on his investigation of the Sana'a manuscripts. I'd be willing to change all my opinions about the composition of the Qur'an given enough compelling evidence. Zora 18:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
As I told Timothy (and as he conceded) I did not violate policy because I did not obtain an advantage in a content dispute by blocking Moshe. In fact, I left the article at Moshe's last edit and I made no change to the talk page other than reverting it to the state it had been prior to his altering my comments.
As for Zeq (who I assume is the other incident you are referring to), he was, as you know, under probation and I contacted the ArbComm before blocking him to make sure I was on solid ground and only blocked him after receiving an email back from Fred Bauder. Nevertheless, I lifted the block after a few mintues. The next day another editor banned Zeq from the article he was editing in a problematic way. Since then, he has been blocked for 48 hours by yet another editor for vote-stacking. Homey 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
You are parsing the text. The exact wording is: "Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute."
No advantage was gained in a content dispute. Homey 12:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You are taking the second sentence in isolation. I am taking it in context in conjuction with the first. Certainly many admins have done the same in the past. However, in future I will bring the matter to an admin regardless of whether or not there would be an advantage in a content dispute just so there's no perception of a violation. Homey 12:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Zeq_.28June_5.29 Zeq 20:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3258963,00.html
good web site to follow.
A lot funnier than last night's vandalism of my (again s-protected) user talk page, at least [3]. Timothy Usher 23:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Check it
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
I award you this Resilient Barnstar for bravely reporting 3RR violations of a senior editor in Muhammad. You are my hero! Keep up the high spirits and let's bust cabals. Anwar 18:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC) |
Why did you add vandalism warning templates to the user's talk page? BhaiSaab talk 23:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Please be aware of my changes to your latest edits. Thank you. BhaiSaab talk 00:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I did not do he did it with Moshe as well [4]. He just explained to Tonay Siaway how he would never repeat this mistake. laughable. Zeq 12:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you please explain This edit, considering the sources regarding this are explictly present in the artcile. -- Irishpunktom\ talk 17:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you know better than to remove a link to a disambiguation page. Son't do it again. Homey 17:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any justification for removing a disambig link other than POV political ones? If not then you have no grounds on which to remove the link. Homey 18:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't. See Talk:Apartheid (disambiguation) where a neutral editor with a background in disambiguation page policy is mediating. In any case, your argument would have been appropriate for the AFD page but as the article has survived... Homey
Hello Pecher,
The removal of the disambiguation link at History of South Africa in the apartheid era has been brought up at the Administrator's noticeboard, and I wanted to give you some background information on disambiguation pages in hopes that you would understand the situation.Please pardon if you already know some of the information.
When multiple pages have the same name, a disambiguation page is created in order to direct readers to the correct article they are looking for.Many times with disambiguation pages, there is one article that is determined to be the " primary topic"; that is, it is by far the most common article to be searched for under that term.When this happens, the primary topic takes the initial name, and then links to the disambiguation page.For example, in the case of Tree, Tree is the primary topic, and it links to Tree (disambiguation) at the top of it's page.
The case of History of South Africa in the apartheid era and Apartheid (disambiguation) is very similar.Since Apartheid redirects to History of South Africa in the apartheid era, it is considered the primary topic of all pages named "Apartheid", and a link to the disambiguation page Apartheid (disambiguation) is therefore appropriate at the top of the page, and should not be removed.
As I know you are aware of, there is currently discussion going on regarding the assorted apartheid pages.If you have any opinions, please participate in the discussions in the appropriate place.However, removing a needed disambiguation link is not the way to go about that.Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions. -- Nataly a 19:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3260578,00.html
complete lack of civility: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=57700783&oldid=57700405
Pecher, your 3RR comlaint is specious and absurd. If you apply a block yourself I will file a complaint against you for abuse. Homey 12:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, I suggest you give this excellent advice to Timothy Usher, Humus, Moshe, Jay and others.
Isn't removing an original research tag considered vandalism? Have you gone and tried to discipline the editor who did that? Perhaps you should lest anyone think you are beign selective in your actions. Homey 12:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Removal of tags usually results in a warning to the person removing them. When is the removal of an original research tag permitted? Homey 13:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't know of another source.However, a pdf is available here temporarily. Gimmetrow 13:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I saw your comment in Talk:Criticism of Hinduism. Its in fact absolutely true and not only this article but nearly all of the articles dealing with Hinduism (even the Hinduism article itself who has a FA status ?) lack references and have many unverified self-sourced claims. We better do something about it. Amir85 18:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Be apprised of WP:AN#NSLE desysopped. Timothy Usher 18:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zeq/apartheid_propeganda Zeq 20:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the missing word. [5] I'm embarrassed at my carelessness! AnnH ♫ 23:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
User Doright unilaterally inserted his preferred guideline into WP:RS as follows, replacing the one discussed on its talk page. I reverted once, and he has now reverted it. I'm backing off to prevent an edit war. I would appreciate it if you would comment on this. The text he has inserted says:
Electronic mailing list archives
Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If such a list is moderated by a reliable entity or hosted by a reputable organization (e.g., H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online, that confirms the identity of its contributors, they may not suffer from the above stated identity problem of Usenet. Therefore, they can be cited and carry the authority (if any) of the person being cited. As with all sources, it is incumbent upon the editor to ensure that the person being cited is notable. All citations must include the name of the person being cited, the message subject line, the archive or forum name and date. -- CTSWyneken 20:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)