User:Bless sins/talk3

Wives

Please don't add content from partisan sources. If you restrict yourself to Watt and the EoI, we can have a reasoned discussion. By flooding the article with partisan sources you make that impossible. Arrow740 23:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

By removing the details of Aisha's age at marriage you lose all credibility with future third parties who will review your edit history. Arrow740 22:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, i noticed some of the dispute on Muhammad's wives which centers around the use of Shibli Nomani (it seems). you should consider taking the issue of Nomani to WP:RSN so that his credentials can be examined by the wider community and hopefully put the issue to rest. what do you think? (ramadan mubarak by the way!) ITAQALLAH 10:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Undercover Mosque

Hi. You caught me mid-revision. I was checking the BBC source, and then restored the quote. If you have further issues regarding anti-semitism, please take them to the talk page, where I responded to you. Thanks. -- Avi 15:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply.

In case you haven't noticed, I replied to your message on my talk page.--C.Logan 03:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pernilla Ouis

Pernilla Ouis, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Pernilla Ouis satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pernilla Ouis and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Pernilla Ouis during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Cruftbane 12:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Criticism of Muhammad. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Gscshoyru 20:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Muhammad

Sorry, I think I may have gotten carried away, just a bit. But I have been using the talk page. I'm trying to reason with users whether sources are reliable or not.

What annoys me is when users claim that the "dispute has been resolved" in order to unprotect the page. One the page is unprotected they come back and engage in the same edit warring that occurred before the page was protected.

I'd like it if you could join the talk page of the article and help us in determining who is a reliable source, and who isn't.Bless sins 20:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

They aren't the only ones who are warring -- you are too. I'm not even going to try to figure out who started it. But you need to discuss this on the talk page and not change the article again until consensus is gained. Period. And if consensus is against you, then give in to consensus, ok? Gscshoyru 20:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Arrow740 also "not change the article again until consensus is gained." Why did you revert my edits? You didn't even make an attempt to discuss changes.[1]Bless sins 20:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly? I reverted because you went over 3RR, though you hadn't been warned yet at the time. So now you've been warned. Someone else reverted me anyway, so no worries. And no, Arrow and the rest also should also not be editing this page. This page needs full protection again... Gscshoyru 20:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

So you know, I'm just responding on my talk page now -- there's more than two people in conversation. Gscshoyru 20:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A tendency you have demonstrated across wikipedia is to make a huge number of changes pushing your POV and then revert-war for weeks when reasonable users oppose them. These are always obvious nonsense, but you post clearly misleading defenses of this material on the talk and then say "per talk" in edit summaries until you're blocked for 3RR or the article is locked. In the future please make smaller changes and discuss them before you provoke a revert war. Arrow740 20:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Caution: In WP:RFPP you have added a duplicate request for page protection and inserted it ahead of the previous request. This is unnecessary and will waste the time of admins who will be dealing with this request. One RFPP per article is sufficient. Taroaldo 20:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the note. The posts were only 1 minute apart, but the second post was inserted below the first, which, based on the time stamps, wouldn't normally happen. Best wishes in continuing to work on the article. I hope all of the editors involved will be able to work collegially for improvement. Cheers! --- Taroaldo 21:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Stillman

You declared in a wavering fashion that you had checked the source and had not found that information. Please tell us what you did find, so that your unconfident statement can be verified. Thanks. Arrow740 20:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Farhat Hashmi

Salaam. Do you not think that we should cite the Pakistan Daily Times in the controversy section since they as an organization ran the editorial by Hassan? A newspaper generally agrees with the statements that it publishes in an editorial I believe. --Rehansalvi 10:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Obvious Wikistalking

OK, I know you do not norally edit black supremacy (or similar articles), and it is obvious you are wikistalking me now. Please stop your stalking and reverting now. (It is also clear you didn't read the talk page, as consensus was to remove that one section you blatenly restored, probably because I removed it.) Yahel Guhan 03:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

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

Delivered by grafikbot 09:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Yahel Guhan 06:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Specificly, I am refering to this as the BLP violation: [2] Yahel Guhan 06:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, how is that "unreferenced". The sources I have used are the same as the sources you have used.Bless sins 06:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Because you remove my comments from your talk page([3]), and call them "trolling", I shall now ignore all of your comments.Bless sins 06:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please respond: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Faith Freedom International. Yahel Guhan 06:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Eid

Wa iyyak akhi, barakallahu feek. MezzoMezzo 03:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Greetings and may Allah guide us all!

wassalam ~atif ^{msg me} - 04:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings from me too! And Eid Mubarak!!! --Aminz 08:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the wonderful greeting Bless sins, taqabAllahu minna wa minkum! ITAQALLAH 14:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. To you too.--TheEgyptian 17:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bless sins. Eid Mubarak bro! Jagged 85 01:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Eid Karim!

Thanks for your nice message. Best to you and yours. Assalamu alaykum, BYT 02:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Eid Mubarak

Eid Mubarak, thank you. Smart_Viral ^(talk) 07:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Re Eid Mubarak

Salaamun Alaykum Thanks for the eid greetings. May you be rewarded. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 11:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Eid Mubarak

thanx a lot .... same 2 u .. Eid Mubarik ..... may this eid brings lots of happiness 4 u nd ur faimly §

Thanks Bless sins. For you as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Wa iyyakum bro and keep up the good work. → AA ^(talk) — 08:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• EID MUBARAK to you too! thestick 08:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Eid Mubarak

Thank you so much bro, Eid mubarak to you too, May Allah shower his choicest blessings on you as well as your family & accept all your prayers. -- Đõc §aмέέЯ  19:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Improper category deletions

I'd have no reason to revert improper category deletions and potentially misrepresentative edits if they did not occur. It is interesting to note that all the potentially improper deletions were performed by one particular editor, is it not? -- Avi 04:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm just trying to protect the integrity of the project and restore properly sourced information and categorization. If it just so happens that it was your edits which keyed off my watchlist and impugned said integrity, I'm sure it's a coincidence. -- Avi 04:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Eid Mubarak. May peace be with you --Danny 17 08:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Review of Treason Act 1661

That would be great. Thanks for offering. Richard75 21:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC) CertainlyRichard75 21:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I will do Islamic military jurisprudence this weekend. Richard75 21:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Done it. Richard75 18:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

HG

Is it my imagination or am I talking to you in several different places? E.g., just responded on Seattle, and you're at Arab citizens, too? Just wanted to say a friendly hello, though maybe I disagree with you at various pts. HG | Talk 06:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Islam template mediation

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Islam ... Both sides seem to have dug in on the dhimmi issue. Very little discussion has ensued, and what discussion there is has focused on "there is no consensus to add it" versus "there is no consensus to remove it". I think it would be helpful if someone filed for mediation. 64.231.195.228 15:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah and categories

Hi. I invite you to please join the discussion on Talk:Hezbollah instead of adding or removing the categories. Lets build consensus, and be patient. Once we establish a consensus, the categories will either stay or go, but until then it does not really matter if they are there or not, in the lifetime of the article this period of time will be like the blink of an eye. It is more important that the article is stable. mceder (u t c) 17:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wazzup

Just givin a holler back at you. Have you seen this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine#Occupation? I hope that some of the info you helped edit has been used in wikipedia articles. --Timeshifter 07:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Battle of the Trench

I would be happy to provide suggestions as to how to improve the article. Before that though, I need to reread the article to get reaccquianted with so as to find the issues with it, then create a list of suggested impovements which I will post under the assessment section i created on the articles talk page. The list should go up sometime tonight or tommorow. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Its up. I hope it helps. Remember these are only suggestions, not demands, so they can be ignored. I hope to see your article go featured some day. Good Luck! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with polytheists, or non muslims for NPOV sake. The problem with pagan is that it only represents a muslim stand point, which suggests that the other view points are not being taken into account. As I understand Islam (from my own studies following 9/11) it is common practice among muslims to refer to those not of the muslim faith as pagans, but in this case that comes up as weasel word and those a violation of the NPOV policy here. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism

As this is a controversial topic, in the future, use WP:RM before moving, and use the talk page to discuss the move first. Yahel Guhan 05:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I also await your responses on the Talk:Islam and antisemitism talk page. Yahel Guhan 06:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

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

Delivered by grafikbot 13:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Electromagnetism3

Hi Bless Sins, I have created a new template that allows each tpoic to be expanded without navigating away from the current page. This means that every article listed can be reached from every other article, without going via one of the main topic articles. If all of the topics are expanded then the template looks identical to the original, however the default is to open with only the topic list associated with the current article open, solving the size issue. Does this address your concerns? I would appreciate your feedback.--DJIndica 19:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Maher Arar

Ahlan. I have provided a second opinion on Maher Arar. Cheers, CP 22:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Banu Nadir

I have not found this following story in any Islamic website.

"According to other sources, the Banu Nadir invited Muhammad to their habitations for a religious debate, to which Muhammad accepted. Muhammad also accepted the condition that he bring no more than three men with him. On his way he was notified by a Banu Nadir convert to Islam of an assassination attempt at the debate."

Can you please provide a link or quote the words of the above source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Authoritative (talk • contribs) 00:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I call on you to substantiate or retract the above story that you had posted. Authoritative (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep reposting without discussion that "both Akhtab and his son defended Banu Qurayza"? This is a false statement since the latter had surrendered without a fight. Authoritative (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hepatitis B virus

Assalamu Alikum. Thank you for your help with the article. --GrahamColm(^Talk ) 20:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have placed the article, Hepatitis B virus, on hold. Since you requested the second opinion, you may be able to help! Thanks for requesting a second opinion. Rudget _talk 15:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the GA!GrahamColm^Talk 16:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Rotavirus

Assalamu Alikum. Thank you for your generous help with my articles.GrahamColm^Talk 20:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop disrupting Wikipedia by restarting your old edit wars. The article has been stable for months now, and I suggest you respect the consensus that exist and cease your attempts to force your will through, on articles such as that one. -- Karl Meier (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Karl, considering your own contribution history, don't you think it's time you stopped your pattern of perpetual edit warring, which has arguably persisted for longer than what you attribute to Bless sins?

Bless sins, i wouldn't blame you if you removed this ironic ultimatum (basis for an attempted RfC/U, it seems[4]) on the same pretexts upon which Karl removes authentic attempts at dispute resolution, but i would also understand if you don't want to reciprocate that kind of behaviour. ITAQALLAH 23:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Karl, please specify the specific point in the WP:BLP that you are referring to. --Aminz (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Banu Qurayza, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Daniel 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, the mediation proposal is awaiting articulation of your acceptance here. ITAQALLAH 11:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

i would prefer only to participate if the other parties (i.e. Str1977) accept it, so that there isn't any feeling of unbalance in terms of perspectives surrounding the discussion. ITAQALLAH 13:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Banu Qurayza. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 02:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

December 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Jonathan Schmitz, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Recent changes to Jonathan Smitz

First off let me say Hi. Second I'd like to say that I did not "insert" any material. I simply reverted an article that appeared to of been vandelized (sorry if I misspelled that) the changes that you made to the article were counter-productive unless the statements in the article were proven false. I honestly dont no if they were true or not. All I saw was an article with informatin, that to my knowledge is true, be edited to where no information is shown and ive never seen an article say "This article is about", Rearete (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• There are potential sources for the article see [5]. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mediation for Banu Qurayza

Hi,

Arrow740 has just listed him/herself as a party in a mediation that has already started.[6][7]

However, the user was not at all part of the dispute. The user hasn't posted on the talk page since September (which is before most of the disputes started). I'm a bit worried, due to my past experience with Arrow740 on other Arab/Islam related articles.Bless sins (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I will discuss this with the mediatior, Shell Kinney, and get back to you as soon as possible. Cheers, Daniel 09:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Image from BBC Channel 4

BLP requires relaible sources; the BBC Channel 4 is a reliable source. BLP is not an excuse for removingtext or images that make one uncomfortable. Please do not remove images which are in and of themselves reliably sourced for no reason. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah pointed out that I confused the two. -- Avi (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

recent information blanking

removal of what seems to be factual information and it's references is frowned upon unless there is some serious reasoning such as neutral point of view violations or other policy based reasons. if you honestly believe there is a breach of BLP (an assertion that confuses me) i request you start a talk page section here and explain your concerns properly. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Your defense of Kirbytime/Atari400

You said on ANI [8] that the sock puppet allegations were "baseless". Have you seen the check user report? Is the current editing behavior of Atarti400 not disruptive? Please, dont defend sock puppets. You should know better than that. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok fine, lets suppose its just Atari400 for now. This user has been disruptive. Other people gave links to the diffs. Do you agree that he's disruptive? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

How are the sock allegations baseless? A person can change IP addresses and still be the same person. Socks are not blocked only on conclusive results of the CU, but also editing behaviors and supporting evidence. Did you know that? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The Checkuser wasnt based on the fact that it was a disruptive user. There are 100's of those on this site. The CU was based on editing similarities and behaviors. Thats a litle more involved than just saying the user is disruptive. I didnt get it. How was the sock allegation baseless? Have you ever filed a CU before? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Zakir Naik

Please explain your blanking of criticism from the lead on Zakir Naik. Also, use the talk page of the article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please be sure to follow the discussion on Naik's talk page. I'm waiting for you to revert the portion of the lead you blanked, or explain your blanking. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you see the top portion of the line you deleted? It says:

Critics have decried the style and substance of his presentations.

Please put it back or use the article talk to discuss this change. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

CIC

You're on your round on blanket undiscussed reverts as usual. The source for this edit of yours is reliable [9] - its from the National Post. How are you labelling this source as not reliable? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of early Christians by the Jews

I noticed you participated in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Jews (2nd nomination) discussion and I thought you might be interested in participating in a similar debate over at Talk:Persecution of early Christians by the Jews. Feel free to come by and contribute your thoughts. - CheshireKatz (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

reply

gave you a reply here: [10]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Islamic astronomy

Salam. It would be great if you nominate the Islamic astronomy article for GA status. You have my full support! Jagged 85 (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just been looking at the article right now. One major issue IMHO is that there are way too many sections (some sections contain no more than a sentence). It's easy to over-section if there's lots of different facets to talk about- it'd be better if you could use slightly more generalised headings and discuss linked topics within them. I won't review the article, but consider joining a lot of them up so that you have substantial, connected paragraphs. ITAQALLAH 16:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's looking a lot healthier now. It would also be best to join the senetences currently on separate lines into flowing paragraphs. ITAQALLAH 22:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Shiva

I will be on a wiki-break for some days. Til 8 jan or so, i will rewrite the worship section after coming back. I request you to not fail the article til then. thanks. happy new year. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Move it to worship then.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

re: Caps

The Qur'an, being the name of a scripture, is a proper noun. Hadith might not be, because hadith simply means report, and there are hundreds upon thousands of them. Other Arabic transcriptions I usually use in articles with lower case because they refer to general concepts (Sharia might be the odd exception) - but it might be useful to see what WP:AMOS says about this (else, one can ask on the talk page). ITAQALLAH 16:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)