User talk:Anonymous editor/Archive 10

Dispute

Dear Wikipedai administrator, can you help settle a dipsute for this article; Islamism. See the following section of that article's talk page; Talk:Islamism#POV_Tags_added_April_4.2C_2006. Thanks a lot. Your help would be greatly appreciated. In my opinion, this article is 90% speculation with no sources. I think it should be deleted and completely rewritten with actual citations and facts. Thanks for taking the time to read this. MuslimsofUmreka 04:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher keeps playin ggames and keeps reverting the new cited edits back to the old version. Please suspend his account. User_talk:Timothy_Usher. He is a complete jerk. MuslimsofUmreka 20:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted once today. I attempted to discuss all of this with MuslimsofUmreka (who you can also see set up a sock puppet this morning User:165.230.73.18 to evade WP:3RR), only to be treated to an endless series of illogical runarounds, personal attacks (as seen again above) and threats from him and another user, as can be seen on the discussion page. These users bully others from the discussion page in order to have the article all to themselves. I am happy to rejoin the discussion if this behavior ends.Timothy Usher 20:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats an IP address which is not mine. The administrator can lok it up. That is not my IP address. MuslimsofUmreka 21:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The person with teh following IP address; 67.188.110.197 keeps reverting the page back to the unsourced version. The new version is sourced and cited and neutral and not straight up attacking Islam. MuslimsofUmreka 21:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Also note that even with his sock puppet (an assessment with which Kyaa the Catlord concurred), he is running up against WP:3RR - and now we have another account Hotdamndiggity popping up out of nowhere to help him out, just in the nick of time, with a grand total of one edit to his name..Timothy Usher 21:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

dear Anonymous Editor

Dear Anonymous Editor,

I am curious as to why you chose to take me to task for one revert while overlooking MuslimsofUmreka's multiple violations of wikipedia policy, including this morning's transparent sock puppitry and a personal attack right here on this page, then freezing his version of the article immediately after a revert by yet another sock puppet (whether his or not, I can't say). At first glance, and without knowing your reasoning, it seems less than fully impartial.Timothy Usher 23:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Timothy. I was just warning you when I gave you the message not to revert anymore because that will get both of you blocked. Looking at the article for the first time I really don't know who is which editor or who is reverting to which version, because there are so many different new editors involved. Good luck solving the dispute. Regards. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. In the meantime, is there any way to stop him from evading wikipedia rules via sock puppets? (Any doubt you might have about this charge I'm sure will be removed if you look at User:165.230.73.18's edits, e.g. his requests for arbitration - same issues, same time, same stylistic/spelling errors, etc.).

I believe the underlying problem here is an editor who doesn't sincerely attempt to follow wikipedia rules, yet plays the victim and games the system, thusfar successfully.Timothy Usher 02:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, although I've called his attention toWP:NPA on several occasions, MuslimsofUmreka continues his personal attacks against other users. The latest, he is accusing some other editor of being homosexual and even included this in his edit summary.Timothy Usher 03:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, his ally on the discussion page, User:24.7.141.159, constantly resorts to personal attacks, most recently including: “Let me demonstrate to everyone who insane and unstable you are.”. “Not only do I disagree with that statement, I find it extremely offensive because of your elitest mentality”, “ Liar and fabricator." and probably others I haven't spotted in his lengthy screed. I have again posted WP:NPA but have no reason to think it will be heeded this time when it's been ignored thusfar.

Since you've involved yourself and are an administrator, I request you take the appropriate action towards those who flagrantly violate wikipedia policy and turn the discussion page into an unhappy and unproductive place for legitimate users.

Barring an actual enforcement of the posted rules, which are currently mocked at every turn, it is hard to see that agreement will every be reached on the discussion page.Timothy Usher 06:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Now he, too, seeing that WP:SOCK is not being enforced, has summoned his own sock puppet User:216.118.97.211 (second edit from this IP). That is the downside of posting rules like this, when they’re not enforced, it only gives unscrupulous users ideas. His comment:

“::::::::DUDE YOU GOT OWNED BY USER:24. Many of us have been watching this talk page and getting a kick out of you pwning yourself at the hands of User:24. 216.118.97.211”

I think you will agree that this is all wildly inappropriate? Or am I just being naive? Is this wikipedia?Timothy Usher 06:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, established legitimate user Kyaa the Catlord writes on the talk page:

"I'm done. I refuse to take part in this since it is simply pandering to MOU's forcible destruction of what had been a very positive, collaborative effort. In locking this piece in a form that he'd unilaterally crafted, whoever the admin was handed him the brass ring. Sorry guys, it was nice, but this is not worth my fucking time. Kyaa the Catlord 06:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)"Timothy Usher 07:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous Editor,

If you read the latest post by User:24 on Talk:Islamism, you'll clearly see that User:Timothy is not innocent at all. He has been removing comments and making a lot of false accusations (i.e. calling User:24 an Islamist in hope of censoring User:24's opinions). User:24 and the rest of the gang were actually being productive until User:Timothy started disrupting the talk page with, what amounts to, trolling. I agree with User:24 in terms of asking User:Timothy to explain why he is calling other editors names and why he is refusing to back up his false accusations against User:24. Furthermore, User:Timothy needs to be accountable for deleting comments. Also, User:Timothy's ally User:67.188.110.197 keeps disrupting User:24's comments. Please read the long post by User:24 from which User:Timothy is pulling his quotes from. I'm going to suggest putting User:Timothy on a wikibreak because of his whining after losing an argument. Thank you for listening. Hrana98 08:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppet...or v.v., depending on one's point of view. Until just now, Hrana98's edits ended long before anonymous editor User:24.7.141.159's began. He is just picking up his old address, as the literary style of this post makes quite evident. And like 24 etc. he ignores WP:NPATimothy Usher 08:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain my literary style? In that explanation include how my desire to not edit for a few months automatically makes me an anonymous user. Hrana98 07:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

A look through the last archive on the Talk:Islamism page under the User:24.7.141.159 address and a comparison with your recent posts under the Hrana name - as well as your recent post under User:24.7.141.159 at precisely the right time to support your Hrana's "It is becoming quite clear that you are an argumentative editor with paranoid delusions" claim (yet another violation of WP:NPA), as well as your overall pattern/timing of edits, your interest in celebrities/television shows, makes this quite clear.Timothy Usher 07:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Just one of many common points of style, particularly salient in that it violates WP:NPA, is the opening with a derogatory psychopathological diagnosis:

User:24.7.141.159: “Let me demonstrate to everyone who insane and unstable you are.” [[1]]

User:Hrana98: "It is becoming quite clear that you are an argumentative editor with paranoid delusions" [[2]]

Timothy Usher 10:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Anonymous editor, I thought you might be interested to have a look at the lecture of Dr.Souroush, the most famous contemporary Shia philosopher, on the subject of "Islam and the Concept of Secularity" at [3]. I like his works. :) I appologize for the spam. --Aminz 08:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Anonymous editor, Thanks for listening to the presentation of Dr.Soroush. --Aminz 20:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #2

Barnstar Brigade The Barnstar Brigade is a new program aimed at giving more very deserving yet unappreciated users barnstars. It will officially start on 2006-04-09, but signing up is encouraged before this date: "Here in Wikipedia, there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go un-appreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go un-noticed. Sadly, these editors often leave the project. As Esperanzians, we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. A project the size of Wikipedia has thousands of editors, so there are plenty of people out there who deserve recognition, one just has to find them. The object of this program is not to flood editors with Barnstars, but to seek out people who deserve them, and make them feel appreciated." Stress Alerts The Stress alerts program aims at identifying users who are stressed, alerting the community of thier stress and works in tandem with the Stressbusters at trying to identify causes of stress and eliminating them. Information Welcome to the second issue of the new format Esperanza Newsletter - we hope you still like it! This week, it was delivered diligently by our new dogsbody. MiszaBot (run by Misza13): any execution complaints should go to him. Content comments should be directed at the Esperanza talkpage. Thanks!

The last AC meeting (full log) The next elections: Approval voting as before and, also as before, an previous leadership member can run. Please submit your name for voting in the relevant section of this page. Voting starts on 2006-04-23 and ends on 2006-04-30. There will be three places up for grabs as KnowledgeOfSelf is leaving Wikipedia. Please see the previously linked page for full details. The Code of Conduct is now ready for extensive discussion! Specific comments should go to the Code of Conduct talk page, discussion of having one at all should be directed to the main Esperanza talk page. The current process for accepting proposals for new programs has been deemed fine. All Advisory Council members and the Admin Gen are to endevour to be bold when viewing discussion. If they feel that consensus has been reached, they will act accordingly. A plea from the editor... The propsed programs page is terribly underused! Please leave any comments, good or bad, on the page, to help us determine the membership's thoughts on the ideas there. Signed... Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, KnowledgeOfSelf and FireFox 19:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiethics

Hi Anonymous editor, the discussion on the Wikipedia:Wikiethics page is continuing at the personal confict level. If you believe the important of the proposal I would appreciate for your contributions and appearance on the discussion page. Please note that this proposal cannot be completed or become successful without your contributions. Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 03:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Timothy Usher

Please review the users edits - I think he has anti-Muslim bias and he thinks he owns Muhammad article. RedCrescent 07:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

So I guess it's a full-scale coordinated onslaught now? Great. Don't suppose you'll stop to thank me for my frequent reverts of anti-Muslim vandalism on this same page? (e.g. inserting "Answering Islam" and the like)

Please note on my talk page the comment of the other editor, with whom I've never spoken prior to today:

"Absolutely, I didnt mean to imply that your edit was vandalism, I definitely know Red Crescent has a pretty poor track record. I just thought that paticular edit of his wasnt exactly debatable or vandalous information, although i didnt notice that he had deleted your bit about view from outside. I like the way youve changed it to read now. -Lanoitarus 08:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)"

Also note Red Crescent's highly personalized comments on the talk page, and on this one - as per the title of the section, it is about me, not the Muhammad article, which I've put a lot of work into; see the discussion page. As is so typical, those with very strong POV's in one direction or another cannot abide NPOV versions.Timothy Usher 09:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ayatollah Khomeini

Could you take a look at this page and follow some of the edits leading to its protection? I was trying to add a section about Khomeini's views on non-Muslims, but the information were removed due to some faulty reasoning. Now the page is protected and there's no real discussion in the talk page. I'm not sure how to move on from here. Aucaman^Talk 17:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what to do about it for now. Wait some time and see if people discuss. If not then we will have see how to move on from there. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of Alien Adoption Agency

That was getting out of hand.--Jnelson09 20:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Mikeabundo

Mikeabundo continues to spam Numa Numa with a link to his nonnotable forum. He has been warned repeatedly that consensus is against him (see Talk:Numa Numa), but refuses to comply, has an RFC against him right now for self-promotion, and refuses to take his repeated warnings seriously. Please block him for at least 24 hours. Thanks. KI 02:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have warned him about it because I don't know if he was aware of it. I will see if he starts doing it again. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Yhnmkk

I noticed that you warned User:Yhnmkk for spam on their talk page so I thought you should be aware that that individual is at it again adding the ridiculous BombIslam.com site. With the number of articles that individual has attempted to add that site to it seems worthy of a block. Netscott 02:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll on Charities

Hello Anonymous Editor, I thought I'd just drop you a little note to invite you to express your opinion on a straw poll for an article title change now setup over at Talk:Charities_accused_of_ties_to_terrorism. Netscott 17:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mikeabundo is well aware

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mikeabundo, the comments above my vandalism warning on User talk:Mikeabundo, and Mikeabundo's contributions. KI 18:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

About your username

Thanks for all your hard work on behalf of Wikipedia? I wanted to take a moment today to talk to you about your username. It seems that it might be confusing to have someone named "Anonymous editor", since "anonymous" has a specific meaning in Wikipedia jargon, referring to IP editors who don't have accounts. Would you please change your username to something else? That would be great. Also, while you're at it, I always recommend to everybody that they choose a username that is either their real name or else just some name that sounds like someone's real name. So you might want to consider that, too. Cheers, Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mosque Status

Salaam -

As I'm sure you have realized, I have attempted to bring the mosque article up to featured status. Your comments on the state of the article are appreciated. My only issue with it right now is the picture of Selimiye Mosque; it's not really relevant to the section. And it may need some copyediting; I would do that myself (maybe I'll take care of that later), but I've already exhausted tens of hours on re-writing this article over the past five days; I need a break. joturner 01:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally think the picture of the Afghan mosque looks much nicer than that of Selimiye Mosque. May I ask why you refer the latter for the primary image? joturner 03:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

How about w:Image:Muhamedali.jpg? joturner 04:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A KISS Rfa Thanks

Thank you, I've been promoted. pschemp | talk 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sunni Islam

I noticed that an edit by you recently mentioned that the Jama'ah in "Ahlu Sunna wal Jama'ah" was instituted by Muawiyah. Do you have any references for that? It's the first time I'm hearing this. Another wikipedian is of a similar opinion. There's a discussion going on at the Talk page for Sunni Islam about this. --Nkv 12:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you! Hello Anonymous editor/Archive 10. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- Fang Aili 說嗎?

Nonsensical

Anonymous editor, your removing the 'mercenary' section of List of converts to Islam and subsequent moving of Bob Denard into the "ranking officers" section isn't logical. Bob Denard is not nor ever was a ranking officer. Were you planning on clarifying this discrepancy? Netscott 02:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well no arguement from me about not needing a seperate section for everyone, but lets remain factual shall we? Bob Denard has no business being in the "Ranking officers" section. Netscott 02:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully this will spell out for you why Bob Denard shouldn't be there. Netscott 02:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The unclassified ones actually were not removed but User:Xorox integrated them into the sections. Follow his/her edits and you will see that he/she spent a lot of time determining what sections they needed to go into. According to User:Xorox's edit commentaries some converts were removed for not being notable (based upon little or no Google hits). Netscott 02:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You know it might help a bit if you'd review the edit history and then edit accordingly, you'd understand a bit better how it is that that version came to be. You've just made another non-sensical edit by removing the "suicide attack" detail. User:Xorox had originally added the "suicide attack" converts (much like you've just done) to the "convicted" section but when I explained that doing so was factually incorrect he/she added the "suicide attack" detail to make the distinction. Netscott 02:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You now have made two non-sensical edits that are point-blank non-factual. That's bad. Netscott 02:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, those "suicide attack" converts weren't labeled "terrorist suicide attack" bombers. Along with the "suicide attack" converts, there was a NPOV statement that spelled this out. That statement can just be removed all together and let the facts stand for themselves. As a result of the edits you've just made there are now several factual discrepancies based upon what sections converts are listed under. Netscott 02:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

All of my edits have been factual, that's not bad. Netscott 02:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, to gain some perspective on User:Xorox's edits and my own please read User:Xorox's talk page. Netscott 02:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Charter

When do you think they'll close this? I'm beginning to feel the Wikistress. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sent to guide all mankind

I see why it's there now. Thank you. Still, the implied parenthetical (as opposed to other prophets who came only for this or that group) wouldn't be clear to most readers. Maybe there is a better way to say this, or a better place in the article to mention this distinction?Timothy Usher 05:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A request

Hi Anonymous editor,

The article dhimmi is protected and I can not edit it myself. Can you please add the original research tag ({ {OR} }) to the article? There are lots of problems with this article to my mind. One but not the only disputed passage is for example the following(in the "Sources of dhimma" part)

"The verse calls upon Muslims to fight against the People of the Book until they pay the jizya head tax and are humbled:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

I disagree with usage of the word "humbled" and taking this passage out of the context(the first sentence does not mention the context of the verse and to my mind contains original research). There are many disputed passages. In any case, I think the tag should be added to the article if any of the parties dispute it. I would be thankful if you could add the tag to the article. Thanks --Aminz 09:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry it seems to be protected right now. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Jinnah PR

Hi - I request your help on an effort to make this article an FA. I know you can really help us solve some serious problems and add reliable info. Please check it out whenever convenient. Rama's Arrow 16:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

POV hiding

I must admit your actions tend to be pretty devious when it comes to hiding your blatant POV. Netscott

I really hope this isn't in regards to the link on Muhammad. joturner 02:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it is. Netscott reverting to a clearly vandalized version is pretty bad especially when everyone else also sees it vandalism/bad faith. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It's wasn't indisputably vandalism or bad faith. The editor may have thought - as I'm sure did Netscott - that he was striking a perfectly deserved blow against religiously-motivated censorship (q.v. the incessant vandalism of the Muhammad image that is on the page now). I do agree that the link shouldn't be there, and will revert it if I'm around if and when it pops up again.

However, I will say that it is somewhat intimidating, for you as an admin to edit from above, so-to-speak, without explaining yourself on the discussion page. There is a POV here, which is fine. It's the potential intersection with the admin part that makes me wary.

Take a look at the MuslimsofUmreka debacle. You shouldn't have been so quick on the trigger on his behalf.Timothy Usher 04:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it was vandalism/bad faith and others though so too. Reverting to a vandalized version just because you agree with it is very wrong. So he needs to learn from this than taking sides with people who have clearly done something wrong. I doesn't need an explanation when it's clearly vandalism/bad faith. Editors shouldn't find the opportunity to start a fight over something when an anon adds it just because they agree with it and the 3rr was violated with four reverts of the same thing. I don't see any debacle on the other issue by the way, the page was protected because of an edit war. Having to revert and then protect a single version out of the ten editors working on the page would be very much against policy. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Even though I'd pointed you to blatant violations of WP:SOCK, which you agreed were most likely there, and of WP:NPA, you declined to act, resulting in a big headache for other editors and ultimately admins, as well as a plainly incoherent version of the article in question.Timothy Usher 05:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That's part is not my job, it's your own job to get them checked. Both of you were treated equally. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What part are you saying isn't your job?Timothy Usher 05:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

To get them checked. I said they were likely there. I didn't say that they were there. Looking at the article, there were several different editors involved including anons. It's not my job to figure out who is which editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

My Apologies

Just a note to apologize to you Anonymous editor for trying to revert/add that link. I must admit that it had been a month or two since the last time I had visited the Mohammed Image Archive page and when I originally visitied it the "Extreme Muhammad" section was no where near as reprehensible as it is now. Now that I've actually seen what's been added to that section since, I 100% agree that such a site has no business being linked to from the Muhammad article. Still I'm inclined to think that the original IP editor did add the link in good faith. Netscott 05:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Concerns about Xorox

Anonymous editor, due to user User:Xorox's propensity to continually add in an unbalanced fashion almost solely "negative" examples of converts to List of converts to Islam and based upon this talk on User:Germen's talk page I am inclined to think that User:Xorox is in fact User:Germen editing via an open proxy as User:Xorox. I have repeatedly counciled User:Xorox to be more balanced in adding to the list but I'm having the impression that my council falls on deaf ears. My last edits on the list have been to include "positive" examples for balance. Is there any way as an admin that you might be able to address these concerns? Thanks! Netscott 13:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I have notified User:Xorox of my concerns posted here. Netscott 13:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait to see if that is right. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand how I am violating WP:NPOV, which in my humble opinion refers to an attempt to avoid loaded words and phrasing and try to represent an accurate representation of the field concerned. Only the result must be NPOV, this requirement does not hold for individual contributions. A simple example: imagine that only criminal converts were added, it would take a very "unbalanced" edit, i.e. the addition of a representative number of reputable converts in order to make the article NPOV. As the vast majority of names on the list belong to established celebrities such as pop singers, politicians and sporters, I still fail to understand what is the problem with my additions, which happen to be well-referenced. The article now reflects a broad spectrum of Muslim converts, which I think, makes it more balanced and as NPOV as it gets. I hope one of you gentlemen can clarify this matter as I am lost.--Xorox 14:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Figures >_> Netscott 02:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Al-Ahbash

Hi Anonymous editor,

I think there is a revert war on the Al-Ahbash article. I do not know what is going on there so asked some people to help me understand but nobody responded to me. People are engaged in revert war rather than talking. Some people are trying to remove a table there but I can't understand why. I don't know who is right and who is wrong. Can you please lock the article? thx. --Aminz 19:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! --Aminz 19:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Anonymous editor,

I have another request. I am sorry for bothering you again and again. Can you please give a revert to the Al-Ahbash article and then lock it. The reason is that we don't still know if the table should be there or not, and moreover it seems to be offensive to Ahbashis. So, it is better not to have it there while we are discussing it on the talk page.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Aminz 01:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that McKhan's recent comments have taken on a rather threatening tone.Timothy Usher 01:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

And it should be added that Timothy first called edits of McKhan as "one of the most offensively one-sided and mean-spirited articles." which I still don't have any idea about it. --Aminz 01:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did say that, but I didn't start talking about his name, where I thought he lived or what I thought he did for a living.Timothy Usher 01:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I see your point Timothy and know you were editing in good faith, but he interpreted your sentence in that way. Let's forget about it. --Aminz 02:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, is it possible to unlock the article just to see if people will engage in revert war again or not? I am not familiar with the rules, would you please let me know if this is a possibility. Thanks --Aminz 20:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for taking your time! But can we have the table removed if we arrive at a consensus on the talk page? Thank you--Aminz 20:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! --Aminz 20:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems there is a consensus that this version, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ahbash&oldid=47531842, can be posted. No body objected to it on the talk page. Can you please apply the change? thx. --Aminz 10:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of an image

Salam! I uploaded an image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shaheen_P1080390.jpg but I mistakenly named it "Shaheen" for Shaheen Airlines, whereas it was infact Aero Asia. I have re-uploaded the image at wiki commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:AeroAsia-737-200-80390.jpg), and tracked all the pages where it was being used, I changed the links to the new file. Now I want this image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shaheen_P1080390.jpg) to be deleted, but I couldn't figure out how to do that. I did find the deletion list, but those are probably the images that have copyright issue and need someone else to fix them, or otherwise be deleted in 7 days or whatever. This case is different, the image is redundant and has to be deleted, so please delete it and also let me know whether only an admn. can delete it or an ordinary editor can do that as well. Thanks Waqas.usman 10:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

More problems with Siddiqui

Hi, you had stepped in a few weeks back to help sort out an edit war of sorts on the Ahmadi page. Well Siddiqui is back to pushing his POV. I am not sure how to handle this since Siddiqui refuses to enter into an sort of meaningful discussion. His recent antics:

1. Redirection of the Ahmadi page to Qadianism [4], with no prior discussion on the talk page and no edit summary. Upon asking him the reasons for doing this [5], I receive no answers but I do receive the same old rhetoric [6] and [7]

2. Resurrection[8] of the Qadianism page with material directly plagiarised from [9], again with no prior discussion on the talk page or edit summary

3. 3rr on Qadianism, [10], [11], [12], again with no relevant discussion on the talk page. No relevant answer to any question asked by me[13]

I would appreciate any help you deem appropriate. Thank you. Nazli 20:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Mosque Article and FAC

Salaam -

Someone raised a somewhat major objection to the Mosque article on its FAC regarding sources. I've attempting to address Pecher's concerns, finding more scholarly sources. If you can help out in any way, that would be appreciated. joturner 01:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

User:70.95.218.47

I have placed a report on the editing behavior of User:70.95.218.47 at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:70.95.218.47_and_User:Rob.towers --WikiCats 03:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Al-Ahbash

Dear Editor I'am turining to you asking for help, for you were in direct contact with the topic in question.

I request the unprotection of the topic Al-Ahbashor the allowance for the protection ‎after the removal of the vandalized version by the anonymous user 151.151.21.99 (with only two contributions on his account both in vandalising the topic mentioned).‎ To be reverted to the last original post on that page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ahbash&oldid=48434418

I also would like to draw your attention to the fact that the topic was continuously vandalized by anonymous users. And at the time the topic ‎was protected from editing it held the vandalized version of the anonymous user 151.151.21.99.‎

The content of the current vandalized version hold a clear attack against an ‎organization solely for its beliefs (Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets ‎directed against another contributor), leaving no fare space for constructive discussion. Noting, that the auther of the vandalized version has ‎been banned from wikipedia twice this month.‎

With my thanks in advance, in anticipation for your reply ‎ Aiysha

I will take a look at it soon. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems there is a consensus that this version, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ahbash&oldid=47531842, can be posted. No body objected to it on the talk page. Can you please apply the change? thx. --Aminz 10:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Ahbash#The_table

Thanks. --Aminz 06:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU!! --Aminz 02:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Spring celebration / Easter (as your preferences and beliefs dictate)

Here's hoping that if the bunny leaves you any beans they're this kind! ++Lar: t/c 15:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Moe is here to say Happy Easter! -- Moe ε 18:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Master Jay's RfA

Thanks bud for your show of support at my recent RfA. If you have any concerns, leave me a message here. --Jay(Reply) 00:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Call for help

AE, I've gotten myself involved in an arbcom case, Zmmz versus Aucaman Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman/Evidence. I offered evidence against Zmmz and he in turn accused me of a multitude of sins, among them edit warring. One of the articles in which I'm said to have edit-warred is Aisha -- and two of the arbitrators are crediting the charges. I know you also monitor that article and do a lot of reverting of PBUHing and charges that Muhammad was a pedophile. Could you explain to the arbitrators the situation at high-profile articles like Islam, Muhammad, Muslim, and Aisha, where it takes constant reversions to keep the articles in reasonable shape? I would appreciate it. If I'm blocked from editing Aisha, it's going to add to the load for the other editors. (reposting what I already posted on Pepsidrinka's talk page). Zora 19:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it soon Zora. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hey, I notice that you tag most of your edits as minor edits. Take the example of the recent revert in Terrorism in Kashmir article. By no means was that a minor edit. Yet you tagged it as a minor one. Why? --Spartian 19:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be a more experienced Wikipedian (considering the fact that your userpage claims that you are an administrator) than me. So I thought that you might be aware of Wikipedia's policy of not regarding reverts as minor edits. See Help:Minor edit. --Spartian 19:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete this category: Towns in Pakistan

Hi, Please delete this Category:Towns in Pakistan. Only about a dozen towns were in this category whereas a full proper category for "Cities in Pakistan" already exists, so I have moved all the towns of this list to the main list (i.e. "Cities in Pakistan"). Thanks. Waqas.usman 04:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Please delete these

I was cleaning up the categories tree, especially under "Northern Areas" of Pakistan category lots of stuff was mixed in, towns, valleys, districts... I've created a new Category under "Category:Northern Areas, Pakistan", and added a sub-category of "Category:Cities and towns in Northern Areas, Pakistan" and another sub-category of "Category:Regions in Northern Areas, Pakistan" which lists the previous or current states that are now consider as "Northern Areas" (cities are not included in this list). So please delete these following categories: Category:Northern Areas Category:Valleys in Northern Areas, Pakistan Waqas.usman 07:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're up for nominating...

I recently came across user David Kernow. I was surprised to find that he wasn't already an admin and I think he'd make a pretty good candidate for administratorship. Check him out, KI 01:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your message; when KI indicated here that s/he'd considered putting me forward, I suddenly realised I hadn't thought about it, then realised that must be because there have been very few occasions when I've felt an admin's action was missing. So I guess that means the system is working pretty well!

I've now printed out WP:ADMIN and will read it anon. I'd be glad to do something to help maintain Wikipedia, while at the same time keeping my efforts to contribute to or build articles ticking over. I imagine most people say that. If there's anything else you think might be helpful for me to read, please let me know. I'll then let KI know whether I'm up for it now or maybe later. (I'm copying this message to him/her.) Any idea what/where I might be asked to help first? Thanks and best wishes, David Kernow 00:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Indefs

I noticed that you blocked some IP address with indef blocks, with the reason: "another rajput editor using IPs for rv war" While I certainly trust that you are more familiar with the revert war in question that I am, I do wish you to explain the unspecified length of the block - AFAIK, a revert war, as idiotic and frustrating as it certainly is, isn't vandalism, and perma-blocking an IP addres, which may be shared by multiple, different users, does not seem justified. I look forward to your expanded explantion, or pointer to one. Please drop a note on my talk page when you answer. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Similar name?

We have similar names. :-) Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 23:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anonymous_anonymous ( Talk) ]

Yes we do. I think you should find a different one :). --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

anonymous RFA thanks

I'm anonymously thanking you for supporting my RFA!!! Bwahahaha now you'll never know who I am!!! Heh, seriously, thanks for the kind words, and the encouragement and mentoring. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

A landslide victory for The JPS (aka RFA thanks)

Hey, Anonymous editor/Archive 10, thank you so much for your vote and comments in my RfA, which passed with an overwhelming consensus of 95/2/2. I was very surprised and flattered that the community has entrusted me with these lovely new toys. I ripped open the box and started playing with them as soon as I got them, and I've already had the pleasure of deleting random nonsense/attacks/copyvios tonight. If I ever do anything wrong, or can help in some way, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will do my best to correct my mistake, or whatever... Now, to that bottle of wine waiting for me... The JPS talk to me 21:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

It's kind of you to speak up for me, especially given the many times we've butted heads. Fair, straight, clean, honest -- thanks! Zora 19:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A Question

Hi Anonymous editor,

Would you please let me know if there is any wiki policy that requires people to discuss controversial changes on the talk page before applying them to the article. I want to remind someone who is doing this over and over to some article. Thanks --Aminz 21:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Charter

Well, it made it, though it was a bit combative for my tastes and I don't feel particularly worthy anymore. Thanks for your contributions. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

USC Qur'an templates

Hi Anonymous editor,

I've expanded Tom harrison's USC Qur'an template to accomodate several other display options, as follows:

^{[Quran 009:010]} (the original template)

009:010

^{[Quran 009:010]}

009:010-015

As you see, the link is the same. All these do is allow us to choose whether the word "Qur'an" displays (in case it's already been mentioned, seeing "Qur'an" everywhere can be redundant), and to include the range in the link display (even though of course it still starts in the same place) where appropriate. Shame about the zeros, but I don't know how to automatically pad the inputs.

Don't use them yet; I still want to make sure the template names are good and won't need to be changed.

I'm also cooking up some Hadith templates for the same site. Any feedback?Timothy Usher 07:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see it when it's done. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

joturner has made some improvements - we no longer need to input or display three digit values, as the zeros are now magically added. Also, we've decided not to include "Qur'an" in the display, so the four templates will be reduced to two, if not one (still haven't heard back about the range problem).

In the meantime, I've taken a chance in the intro to Islam. After all the controversy on Muhammad re central figure/major figure/founder etc., what's your opinion of this:

"Islam is a monotheistic religion centered on the text of the Qur'an."

Do you think that fair?Timothy Usher 05:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That seems fair. I have condensed the next sentence a little but yes it's good. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: your diff [14]

“A person who truly believes in the meaning of these words is a Muslim.”

“However, for practical reasons one may need to recite the words in the presence of witnesses to become Muslim...”

Saying someone is already a Muslim, but then must do something else to become a Muslim is contradictory. Your second version was fine. Just wanted to let you know why I wrote that in my edit summary.Timothy Usher 02:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It just sounded like a repeat that's why I was testing how it would sound. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamic scripture template news

1) Template:Quran-usc has been altered in two respects:

a) it’s no longer required to input three digits - this is automated thanks to joturner.

b) the template no longer includes “Qur’an” in the bluelighted display. Editor may choose to write it or not (or “Sura”, or “verse”, etc.) according to context.

c) thus the “-num” variants are redundant and should not be used.

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

3) Template:Bukhari-usc is operative, with three variables (volume, book, hadith), and automated tridigitation as per Quran-usc.

4) Template:Quran-usc-num, Template:Quran-usc-numrange and Template:Buhari are defunct and should be deleted.Timothy Usher 07:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Jinnah

Hi AE - your removal of the "non-religious" note is in IMO, not correct. Rediff.com is a respectable news site - a less credible source was replaced in favor of this upon the request of user:Green Giant. If you have issues with this point, please discuss it before removing the information. Rama's Arrow 20:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As a Pakistani, I know that it ia a fact that Muhammad Ali Jinnah was not a practicing Muslim he ate pork and drank alcohal when he was in England. So your misinformed deletions and objections are unacceptable.Siddiqui 20:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is with sources, so if you can find a history source which correctly states that he did then that source would be fine. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza edit by Bhadani

AE, recently User:Bhadani made an edit to the Esperanza talk page claiming that you were "probably under great strain and stress for reasons beyond his control." After reviewing your talk page, where you have blanked his comments a number of times and asked him to stop posting, I considered his remarks trolling and removed them. A concerned user has asked about the reasoning behind my deletion; perhaps you would like to chip in. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 05:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, it's good to hear that you're not actually under any "great strain and stress." Enjoy the cucumber. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 23:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A token of my respect

This Cool as a Cucumber_Award is awarded by Bhadani to AE for always maintaining calm and composure. Certification is based on my repeated interaction with him. --Bhadani 10:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

My dear friend AE, I marvel at the depth of your maturity and the calm and composure displayed by you in spite of interaction sometimes bordering on insanity. 'Useless' is a relative term – my messages to you which you termed as useless were useful indeed to me as proved by the hindsight – to understand you and your personality. Please accept the barnstar which I am presenting to you as a token of my regards to your professional attitude in building the Project, Better than the Best. We shall do it AE as we are the most vibrant and resilient virtual community of the present age. May this Akshaya Tritiya bring more prosperity to the Project! Kindly reposition & resize this symbol of my respect to you in anyway you may wish. Regards. --Bhadani 10:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I really hope now that you will stop with the useless messages. Thank you. Regards, --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Promise. Now, I do not require to do such thing: your credibility has been certified beyond doubt!!! Still I maintain useless is a relative term. --Bhadani 09:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This is Moe

Hello Anonymous editor, just thought I would let you know that I was leaving Wikipedia, but before I left, I finally got a picture of thyself of onto Wikipedia. (I know great timing for me to post a picture of myself, right?) This is my final gift to my friends. Later! PS. Try not to laugh to hard at my ugly mug ok? Moe ε 14:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Al-Inshirah et. al.

Hi Anonymous editor. I noticed you added an external link to the text of Al-Inshirah after I changed the included text into a link to Wikisource. Your external link seems redundant, so I'm not really sure why you added it. I was planning on going back and finishing the rest of the Sura articles to be consistent with the Wikisource template. Could you fill me in? Thanks! ~MDD4696 20:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy

I'll chime in in a moment, during a break from AP studying. Is there a central location for this discussion or is it just Timothy's talk page? joturner 23:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for a mediation page

Anonymous editor, can you please let me know your opinion regarding having a mediation page on this topic. Thanks --Aminz 00:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of making a link on my page and asking everybody to discuss the issue there. How is that? -- Aminz 00:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your argument makes sense. But many people may forget that these two are the same: e.g. "it isn't so clear to me that Garbiel is referring to the angel that talked to Muhammad. However, it is clear that Jibril is." And the problem becomes much more serious for the word "Allah". --Aminz 01:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What really really bothers me is that some hostile people towards Islam are misusing the issue. They say Muhammad was possessed by Satan. Muhammad recieved revelation from "Allah" so "Allah" is satan. --Aminz 01:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, I agree that clarifying things in the intro makes things more clear for many people. But let me show you a counter example. I was moving around changing some of the words "Allah" to "God". Guess what? Someone asked me: "Just want to be clear on this... When Jews refer to Yahweh they are actually referring to Allah?" Then I provided quotes from Maimoinds and so on to PROVE that they are the same. Please note that these are educated editors. The sentence ""it isn't so clear to me that Garbiel is referring to the angel that talked to Muhammad. However, it is clear that Jibril is." was written by an "admin". --Aminz 01:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, I completely agree that if someone really knows a little bit about Islam will know that "Allah" is God. The problem is that most of the people don't know Islam. It is potentially very easy for people to think that "Allah" is a different God, because they have different words. I think our understanding of the words are based on the contexts that those words are spoken (and I think a child learns the words through their usage). In natural language no two words are 100% synonym. They maybe very close but not 100% synonym. So, our mind likes to make distinction between different words. I think having two words for the same thing is considered something extra and will be removed through evolution of language. Now, we have imported the word "Allah" from outside to English language. I believe it is quite natural that people think Muslims are worshipping a different god named "Allah". I was particularly annoyed when I saw the article "Islamism" just because of the word "Islamism". I believe it is a conspiracy. I need to go now but will be back soon and will explain more.--Aminz 01:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

But the problem is that the majority of people don't learn about the words in wikipedia. They learn the words from media and others within the context they are used. If the word "Allah" is only used in an Islamic context, then most of people (especially uneducated ones) will think Allah IS the God of Muslims (and this the reality we are observing now). I believe unless we use the word God over and over in Islamic contexts, we will not be able to correct this view. Another way and maybe a better way is using the word Allah in christian or Jewish religous contexts which I don't think I will be able to do that in wikipedia. I think if we import the word "Isa" to english language, we will make the situation even worst. --Aminz 01:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

An important point to both of you, as relative to all of this talk of transliterated Arabic terms and the English language on Wikipedia it may not be clear in your minds.: Wikipedia is not a dictionary and thereby is not a usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. To quote that policy here for absolutely clarity, "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used. ". Editors are to write articles on how things are, not to write articles based on how things should be. Netscott 18:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, of course Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The issue is rather one of translation. As en.wikipedia.org is an English-language encylopedia, we can all agree that the vast majority of foreign terms ought be translated into English wherever adequate equivalents are well-established. Typically this is accompanied by the original language gloss following the first words of the article, which themselves are usually identical to the article’s title. Counterexamples fall into two categories: 1) where there is no well-established English language equivalent (e.g. Dharma, Deen, Kafir) 2) where the article is about the foreign term itself (Allah, Yeshua, Jesu).Timothy Usher 07:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What I'd like to see is examples of biographies, as Anonymous editor had assured us existed, with similar forks [15]. Still waiting.Timothy Usher 07:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "Allah is God" and I am writing the articles on how things are. Allah is a glorified proununciation for the God that People of the Book already know. It is a misconception that Muslims are worshipping a different God than People of the Book worship.

There is no reason that all religons except Islam should have the right to use the word "God" but when it comes to Islam we need to mention Allah. That's discrimination and utter injustice to Muslims. It is like forcing Jews to use Yahew instead of God in their articles.

A good compromise suggested by Timothy which I think is really good is using the word "God" within the typical texts of wikipedia but using "Allah" in Qur'anic verses and quotes. This should make everything clear. --Aminz 20:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, moving the article specifically will not really clear the misconception. People who don't want to believe the figures are the same will always do that. But in Wikipedia, we can use the actual name for Isa as the Islamic figure that exists in his own importance not because an article on Jesus exists. It doesn't mean that if a figure also exists in Christianity too that this figure becomes only an article based on the perspective. Isa in his own self can have an article just like Yeshua and Jesu that do exist. It's a different belief and the entire reason why the articles is here in the first place. It isn't just that because a figure exists in two religions that we can not have the real name of the figure being used as the name. The argument is not just the English language translation, which like I said is not a good argument since we have many articles named on figures in other languages. Just about all the other language biography articles and articles on important figures are that way. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Might you provide us some examples of biographies with an analogous fork (excluding Islam-related articles, naturally)?Timothy Usher 05:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if you read my comment, you can start with Yeshua and Jesu as examples. I wasn't talking about "pov-forks" specifically. I said we have many articles named on figures in other languages. Just face that the page belongs there and the only reason you're doing is because of your pov and thinking that your edits are the best ones and only ever made to articles. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeshua is not a biography, nor is Jesu. Anything else?Timothy Usher 05:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again read my comment. This is clearly the same case as Isa. I don't hear you wanting to move the Yeshua page. Why is that? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Because these articles are about the foreign language words themselves. As you've written, "Just about all the biography articles and articles on important figures are that way," ([16], [17]) I ask you again for examples of biographies with similar forks.Timothy Usher 05:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Read the comment again. Are you denying that Yeshua is a fork? Just face that editors who have worked on the articles for a long time are not going to watch you ruin them just because of your arrogance and arbitrary actions. And I really find that you are horrible at making an arguement. You are asking for something completely unrelated without checking what the discussion is about. I hope you stop arguing over useless matters and reverting. I ask you again to tell me what's the difference between Yeshua and Isa? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You've evaded my question. You said biographies, so provide examples. Yeshua and Isa, like Allah, are about the foreign-language words themselves. They are not competing biographies. Examples, please.Timothy Usher 05:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Asking me to answer a set up argument when I was talking about articles about people and figures being in other languages (and not pov-forks specifically) shows how ridiculous your arguments is. Please answer my question, you do that very rarely. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 06:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually just don't leave me any messages at all since you are only arguing over useless arguments. I am fine with discussing on the articles. It's time you faced that the move just isn't going to happen. Just because you weren't here long enough and are completely unaware of the history of the page, doesn't mean the editors are going to repeat it again just so that you can make what you think are the "best edits" ever made to the article. Same for all your other edits. Learn to revert less, assume good faith, and compromise or you'll find yourself treated like a vandal. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 06:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think if there is any examples, it should be found in Jewish articles (maybe a jewish/christian concept). I haven't seen any so far. --Aminz 05:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeshua and Jesu as I and others have mentioned before. I don't why Timothy isn't treating it the same way as he's treating Isa. He needs to figure out that the world isn't based on christianity. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 06:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous editor,

I believe what we are discussing here is more like a real life problem rather than a mathematical problem. I don’t believe we can say one is true and the other is wrong. One position maybe better than the other but I don’t believe one of them is right and the other is wrong. Arguments for both sides could be presented. And I think all of us have our own underlying motivations which will dominate our position towards the issue. The arguments can always be produced. My underlying motivation is of course very clear. I want to avoid misunderstandings of Islam as much as possible. I guess your underlying motivation is to make sure that people do not look at the Islamic concepts from their own (e.g. Christian) perspective. I guess you believe that having different words helps the readers to distinguish between the concepts (or beliefs) and clear up their minds for new information. Am I right? Though we should not mention our underlying motivation in wikipedia, but can you please let me know if I have understood you correctly. I believe unless we don’t discuss the matter at the level of underlying motivations, we will not be able to get at consensus regarding this issue. Maybe we all look for the same thing at a higher level. Thanks, --05:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Islam Peer Review

I am requesting a peer review for the Islam article. If you have any suggestions, please let us know. Thank you very much. BhaiSaab 01:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

A comment about Timothy Usher

Hello Anonymous Editor,

Timothy asked me to look into [18] in which you wrote about Timothy that “You already admitted it was arbitrary.” Timothy gave me the following reference for this [19] that reads: “Yes, were they arbitrary. But translating Arabic terms into English cannot be reasonably described as arbitrary.”

If this is the reference for Timothy’s admission of making arbitrary changes, I can not see how that sentence could means that he has admitted that his changes were arbitrary since 1. the above sentence is in question form and also 2. is followed by another sentence that makes the meaning clear: i.e. He believes the translations are not arbitrary changes. This is the only way I can read that text. I can not see how the above sentences substantiate that “Timothy has admitted that his changes are arbitrary” if that is the only reference for this.

Timothy claims that your comment “You already admitted it was arbitrary” implies that he is doing something he believes arbitrary and he considers this as a charge against my character which I believe is true if he has not accepted this charge in reality. --Aminz 05:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if he admits it was arbitrary or not. Moving a page, making 20-30 disputed edits and changing all the names while there is still disagreement on the talk page is arbitrary whether he admits it or not. This is exactly what arbitrary means. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 12:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Greeting Anonymous editor, thank you for writing me on my talk page. I must admit that while I fully do not support User:Timothy Usher's edits I was concerned about his block only because I didn't see a 3RR violation report anywhere and User:Sean Black's block of him seemed to have spontaneously occurred (and it mentioned only "edit warring", not specifically 3RR violation). You don't already have the diffs corresponding to his violation do you? Netscott 12:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well there are at least three independent (and rather varied) editors expressing concern about his block. Having just reviewed the history on the article I can only find 3 reverts in 24 hours:

• 02:55, 2 May 2006
• 03:13, 2 May 2006
• 11:07, 2 May 2006

Am I missing one somewhere?

That said there's no doubt about it that after the unprotect of the article it was poor form of User:Timothy Usher to immediately revert. Also one can see that you two have been going back and forth and the types of edits that he's doing shouldn't be done without a wider (than that one article) general consensus on it. Still, unless I'm mistaken about his diffs it is rather wrong to accuse him of 3RR when such is not the case. Netscott 12:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Having just reviewed the last entry on Timothy Usher's talk page and unless you can support the appearingly false statements you made re: 3RR violations would you kindly unblock him now. Thanks! Netscott 12:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly the case and as I mentioned reverting constantly to a version that he changed arbitrarily while discussion was still going on with much disagreement is edit warring by itself. What really makes it worse is that he reverts right after unprotection [20]. He has to learn without reverting. Even if it's not an exact 3 revert block does not make it so that it's any better for him to start pushing his version while discussion is going on with much disagreement. And changing all the names of the article when the title does not fit it is a also very wrong. If he was blocked, it's because he needs to cool off otherwise he would just revert again. I didn't edit the article yesterday at all for the very reason that I want to avoid any problems like this. But Timothy has done this on many pages, always making people accept his version, and then edit warring. Read 3rr, a block is certainly deserved simply because of repeat reverts to a version which is currently controversial and being discussed. I thought that he would have learned to stop, but it still continued into yesterday. He should not excessively push his version which we are already trying to discuss on the talk page. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 13:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely understand your points and they are valid but in good faith I believe you should unblock him for your having falsely accused him (thereby prejudicing others against him) of 3RR violation. I honestly don't see him reverting more at this point but if you feel it's necessary then require that he not do any reverting period for at least 24 hours prior to you unblocking him. Netscott 13:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No because it's certain that the edits were reviewed before according to what Sean said when blocking him. It itself was disruption and excessive reverting over the past few days to a version that's being discussed. Just because he reverts every day and makes sure that he doesn't exactly make four in a day doesn't make it acceptable. It's disruption when other editors are trying to work out his largely changed version and he's just reverting and he does the same afte unprotection. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 13:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, do you want other editors to believe you adminster in good faith or not? Seriously man false accusations are BAD! Do the right thing. Besides from looking at the Isa talk page history it is evident that Timothy Usher did actually explain and discuss the edits he was making (even User:Tom harrison responded to them). Netscott 13:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No Timothy was involved in the disagreement on the talk page. That does not mean he should keep reverting to an arbitrary and controversial version while the discussion is going on and then edit war over it. He needed to cool off and stop reverting excessively and that's why he was blocked. He should accept it than getting even angrier and making it even worse. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I left this message on his page after he altered my comment by dividing it up and mixing it with past versions:

Please stop altering my comments. I am allowed to clarify what I mean. Your actions are, regardless, still a block under edit warring and the 3rr policy because it was excessive reverting to a completely arbitrary and controversial version while the discussion is going on on the talk page. You knew it was controversial and there was a large disagreement so why did you make massive changes like changing all the names in the article? You can't make huge changes and expect all editors to keep them. It could have waited till discussion was over, but you kept reverting even after the article was just unprotected. That is reverting excessively only to push your largely changed version of the article and for your argument to rename the article. That's not a rename is done as I'm sure you know. The block is too cool off and stop reverting. I didn't edit the article at all yesterday to avoid this problem. You keep reverting and never care about compromise or wait for any consensus. You can't make such large arbitrary changes to the article all at once and then make it worse by trying to revert every day 3 times until all editors accept it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You wrote, “I left this message on his page after he altered my comment by dividing it up and mixing it with past versions:” 19:12, 3 May 2006

This charge, like several others you’ve recently made, is politely known as a lie. I neither altered your comments nor mixed them with past versions. My reasons for moving your comments and preventing you from altering their sense after other editors had responded to them, are clearly stated on my talk page. Unfortunately, it seems I can't stop you from doing it just about everywhere else, but I'll be damned if I allow it on my user talk page.Timothy Usher 22:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, Sean, 3RR accusation, and you

Hi, Anonymous. Thanks for your message on my talk page. I'm a little uncomfortable jumping into someone else's battle, but I see what happened the other day as not giving an impression of fairness. I have no involvement or interest in the article in which the reverting took place. I have very little experience of Timothy Usher. I have none of you, but I imagine that someone whom SlimVirgin nominated for adminship would be pretty decent and trustworthy. My experience with Sean Black has been very positive. So, what do I see when I jump in? I see the following:

Thank you too for the message and for organizing this. I don't agree with you defending because I feel that if someone makes arbitrary changes and then reverts to their version is not acceptable. I will discuss your concerns here but I am not interested in spending time on it much more than that.

Block was necesary. He would keep reverting otherwise. Just because he does it less than four times a day doesn't mean it can't be blockable. If I was an admin that viewed the entire case and saw that his version was one that completely ignored the discussion on the talk page and was completely arbitrary, I would do the same. He kept reverting even after protection when the whole purpose of it was to cool both sides down. He never took the hint. I didn't even edit the article the day after, because that's what protection is for. And even what he was doing to the article is silly. An article is related to what it's named after. He continued edit warring and for something completely silly. Changing all the names in an article is wrong and is equivalent to vandalism. He definitely knows that is not the way to move an article. His was a completely arbitrary version, an arbitrary move and he has no justification to change all the names while the article is still controversial (being disagreed with on the talk page) and then revert to an arbitrary version that is being disagreed with while discussion is going on. We can't have editors change already controversial articles with a hundred edits all at once and then revert war to keep that version. That is blockable under 3rr. I warned him several times and so did other editors. He needs to respect concensus versions and stop making arbitrary changes. Respecting the talk page discussions more and that you shouldn't make large changes while your version is . He did this again on another article even three days after his block. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy moved the article on 30 April and did many other consecutive edits, and Anonymous editor then did three consecutive edits late on 30 April and in early hours of the morning on 1 May (UTC). Here are the reverts. Timothy's are indented, for easier reading.

• 23:11 on 30 April, AE's first revert
• 23:12 on 30 April, Still AE's first revert (two consecutive reverts with no intervening edits count as one)

  02:02 on 1 May, TU's first revert.

• 02:04 on 1 May, AE's second revert

  09:01 on 1 May, TU's second revert

• 01:35 on 2 May, AE's third revert

  02:55 on 2 May, TU's third revert

• 02:56 on 2 May, AE's fourth revert

  03:13 on 2 May, TU's fourth revert

• 03:17 on 2 May, AE's 5th revert

At 03:28 on 2 May, the article was protected in AE's version. At 10:50 on 2 May, it was unprotected.

• 10:54 on 2 May, TU's fifth revert

• 12:05 on 3 May, AE's sixth revert

I also see that Timothy was warned by Tawker at 19:21 on 2 May, and made no further edits to the article before being falsely accused by you at WP:AN/3RR at 19:36, blocked by Sean Black at 19:40 and informed of the block (also by Sean) at 19:52.

Since nearly seven hours elapsed between Timothy's last revert (which was not a 3RR violation) and the block, I cannot see that the block was necesssary — to give a cooling-off period.

This seems to have been a content dispute between you and Timothy. I can see that it would be considered disruptive if someone came along and reverted even only three times when his reverts were contrary to the general consensus. But as far as I can see, nobody supported you at the time, and nobody supported him. So I don't think he was trying to force his version any more than you were.

He made one edit and five revets; you made six reverts. (Note that I count consecutive edits by the same editor as one.) So, if he was edit warring, you must have been as well. Yet you weren't blocked. I'm not saying you should have been, just that perhaps he shouldn't have been — or at least that he needn't have been.

You made at least four claims that Timothy violated 3RR; these claims were made at 19:36 on 2 May, 19:47 on 2 May, 12:13 on 3 May, 12:19 on 3 May. Contrary to what you said on my talk page, Sean Black did make one claim that Timothy had violated 3RR; the claim was made at 01:18 on 4 May. Sean did not make that claim in the block log or in the message he sent to tell Timothy he had blocked him.

I don't get the impression that Timothy is looking for blood, but while he is aware that one can be blocked even when staying beneath four reverts, I think he wants, and is entitled to, an acknowledgment from you that he did not make four reverts, and that you were mistaken in claiming that he had. It seems almost certain that the block, nearly seven hours after his last revert, was made as a direct result of your false claim at WP:AN/3RR. He doesn't want that in the event of a future dispute, it will be said of him, "Oh, he violated 3RR before." Sure, he reverted after the article was unprotected, and yes, it would have been better not to do that; but protection is not an endorsement of the current version, reverting after unprotection is not forbidden by policy, and he was not warned about that.

Since you made that inaccurate accusation of 3RR violation four times, and since Sean said here (after the block):

I did review the situation fully, or at the very least, to the best of my ability, before making the block. He did violate the three revert rule

it's reasonable to suppose that he made the block under the false assumption that a 3RR violation had taken place (even if he just described it as edit warring in the block log), and that Sean might have made a different decision if he had not been under that false assumption.

So far, in response to Timothy's requests for clarification, you seem to have continued to make the 3RR accusation at first, and then to have simply changed the subject and to have said that he was edit warring anyway. (Well, he made five reverts and you made six.) Sean's response was simply Blech, which I find completely out of character for an administrator that I think extremely highly of.

Actually that was my mistake to say that first, but even still that is blockable under the 3rr. I explain this below. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to make this such a long post, and I mean no disrespect, but I think this has not been settled satisfactorily, and that Timothy has reason to feel indignant at the way it has been handled. I'm coming to this as an outsider, with know knowledge of the article in question, and no opinion on your edits or his (neither of which I have properly examined), and I feel you may be influenced by your opinion that your version was better. To assume good faith, we must accept that he sincerely believes his version is better also. Can you take a moment to consider how you'd judge the whole case (false 3RR accusation, more reverts from the opponent than the accused, block nearly seven hours after last revert, no warning given about reverting after unprotection, several requests for clarification, insistence that there was a 3RR violation then changed to "well he was edit warring anyway", and "Blech") if you had had no previous involvement with that article and that editor?

"I feel you may be influenced by your opinion that your version was better". It wasn't my version. The version was the original; they way the article should be in it's original encyclopedia title. Again we must keep the topic in the article the same as the title and not ignore the discussion on the talk page just because you feel the discussion isn't going your way. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR report page has not been archived yet, and so it is still possible for you to amend your accusation here that he violated 3RR.

Cheers, AnnH ♫ 14:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, it was the fact that Timothy made several changes as the article was still being discussed with much disagreement and controversy, He first moved the article, and changed all the names to make a completely arbitrary version that ignored the discussion on the talk page.

After the article was moved back, he continued to change the names even after I pointed out that an article uses the names that are found in the title. That is almost vandalism and violation of WP:POINT.

He continued reverting until the article was protected by admins, and then continued reverting to his arbitrarily changed version only 6 hours later after it was unprotected. All this time, I continued discussion on the talk page over him arbitrarily changing it [21] and also about the disagreement itself. His excuse was that he is too lazy to go back to change all the verse links again. I pointed out that his version was arbitrary and he shouldn't have done that

The protection should have cooled him off as that's what it's for but apparently he found it necessary to continue reverting again. I didn't revert at all the entire next day because I was hoping he would continue discussion over the next day but the discussion on the naming didn't continue and more reverts were made by him. That was not the point of protection and violates why protection is done. But he never took the hint and reverted again minutes later as it was unprotected

Btw, Sean did not say 3rr, that was my mistake, it was continuing edit warring right after protection. But as I said even the 3rr policy says that reverting excessively is wrong especially in the case when disagreement was already found on the talk page. He can't change an already controversial article with dozens of changes all at once that are being discussed and disagreed with then expect editors who regularly work on the article to keep the edits. It's timothy's own fault for making arbitrary changes. It's not my job to clean up his mess by going back and individually restoring small links to a template that he made along with his arbitrary edits.

He's made this a bigger deal then it was, when clearly he was edit warring over a version that was changed arbitrarily and reverts that should have never been made especially after unprotection. He's going to need to respect the consensus that goes with arbitrary changes, and he's done the same thing on other pages too only a couple of days after his block[22]. Here, he's the only one that agrees with his version, and he continues reverting without respecting consensus. [23]. Like I did on Isa, I mentioned this again as a warning to him [24]. He denies it and reverts again [25]. And I point it out again that arbitrary edits that don't respect the consensus are wrong [26].

He's unfamiliar with several wikipedia policies including how articles are written after what their named and not to revert if their is no consensus for your version and also not to do it minutes after the article is just unprotected. Also moving pages arbitrarily when there is disagreement on the talk page will get him blocked again soon. He can't keep using the fact that 3rr isn't violated to keep reverting. Sean's actions were certainly fair considering that the purpose was to stop him from reverting to a largely changed version less than 4 times everyday. He definitely can't keep playing this game. Cheers, --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Anon, as you well know, several points you've made above are lies. Were it the case that my changes on Muslim were supported by no other editor, whereas your version obtained consensus, the article history wouldn't look the way it does. You've also reiterated your claim that Sean Black didn't say 3RR, even after you've been shown the diff on AnnH's talk page. And though you concede that 3RR was your mistake (which Sean made the mistake of believing without checking), you refuse to apologize for the block which, by your own earlier admission (before you realized you'd erred) was based upon it, implicitly admitting that your false 3RR claim was nothing more than a fig leaf for an underlying content dispute. You've no apologies for false statements you make about your fellow editors, nor for the consequences which result from them. Rather, it seems that you're quite proud of them.Timothy Usher 07:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, I believe Timothy is an excellent editor and one of the best wikipedians. He also didn't break the 3RR rule and Sean made a mistake in blocking him. --Aminz 07:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No he was fine in blocking him. I hope Timothy can become a better editor now. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)