User talk:BhaiSaab/A3

	Archives
	1 2

Bakaman

Hello BhaiSaab. Can you get me some diffs please. I seem to be inundated with Indian related requests more than the Indian admins, so it would be good if I didn't spend three hours everyday trawling through every single edit of everybody who is lodging a complaint or is complained against. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 01:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Blnguyen is familiar enough with Lkadvani to know what a personal attack in his case is. Oh and the last diff is the kind of diff ony the apricot admin or w/e would block someone for. It stated the facts.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want your help here coz. as per norm it should be filled by two persons at least.[1].Holy|Warrior 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've replied to the latest bunch of stuff on my talk page. Also, please do not try and bait Bakasuprman, as occurred at User_talk:Holywarrior. thanks,Blnguyen | rant-line 05:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shahadah in Shi'i Islam

In Response to your messgae to me: Brother you want a source in the Quran?, okay give me the sura where it says how to perform Salat? can't find it? of course because it was given to us from the Prophet (saw) and the imams (as) If you are to strip Shahadah from its unique place then you must strip it from the five pillars of Sunni Islam. Secondly nabuwwah is different and is relavent because if i were to say i believe in one god ans Jesus is his messenger then am i muslim? i do not think so. thus Shahadah is unique from tawhid and nabuwwah and deserves its own position.

Shahadah This article is unique, Tawhid and nabuwwah do not satisfy the definition of Shahadah because Shahadah states one particular prophet, whilst nabuwwah is the belief in all of God's prophets. "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is His Prophet". This declaration of faith is called the shahadah.

Here is a question, are you trying to say that the declaration of faith is not present in Shi'i Islam? and do not use tawhid and nabuwwah as it breaks down because what makes a muslim different from a christian or a jew fundamentally is the belief in the Prophet Muhammad (saw) Al-Zaidi

it is present but not categorised hmm i see so it is not a fundamental. interesting that the core concept of Islam is not present in your readings of Shi'i Islam. Then you mean to say that if i look at the categories of Shi'i Islam i can say that they are hanifs? because the hanifs are monotheists and believe in the prophets but have no central prophetic concept with Ibrahim al-Hanif as the christians with Jesus and Muslims with Muhammad. so what is the different between the hanifs and the shi'is? it can't be the imams because that is the difference with the sunnis. so? where is the core distinction of Shi'is if declaration to one god and to Muhammad is not present? The root of Shi'i Islam is not the belief in Muhammad as God's last messenger as the sunnis? this seems to be a bias against Shi'is.

If the Shi'is according to you satisfy this in the third root Nabuwwah, risalat, then please explain why Sunnis do have both Shahadah and nabuwwah, risalat? there is a difference? obviously yes there is. Secondly when it comes to the belief in the prophet muhammad Shi'is just as sunnis believe him to be the last and the prophet of their religion. so either you take shahadah out of the five pillars of sunni islam or you add it to the roots of religion of Shi'i Islam.Al-Zaidi

islam by country page

some vandels are trying to decrese the population of muslims in different nations please see 2 that—The preceding unsigned comment was added by One2one (talk • contribs) .

Ahmadinejad

Hi BhaiSaab. As long as we have this cat, he belongs in it. As you probably know, Ahmadinejad was widely condemned for this. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islam by country

You reverted my bot's edits to this page. ([2]). I realize that the change was likely in error, but I wanted to caution you to be a little more careful about reverting legit edits when removing content. Thanks! alphaChimp ^laudare 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The bot already fixed it. I just wanted to tell you. alphaChimp ^laudare 02:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. - This is in response to your attack on me and D-boy for our AfD votes. Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prove what? making shoddy PAIN cases, going through all my contribs. That's proof enough. Also see WP:AGF. I believe you harrassed D-boy here [3].Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bakaman,it's rather ironic to repeatedly post messages on people's talk pages accusing them of harassment. For my part, I have no opinion of you or your POV, other than to note that you've made many personal attacks. Similarly, I took issue with the (now-deleted) page because it contained an "enemies list" wherein other editors were attacked, in several cases for their religion.Timothy Usher 01:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to respond since Timothy Usher deleted my posts on his talk page ([4])Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He deleted your posts rightly so. I would do the same if I didn't fear someone might use such a removal against me. All your baseless accusations against me come without any proof. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De-escalation

Now might be a good time to let things settle a bit. After everyone has time to cool off it will be easier to continue. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be better not to respond to claims made by another user in this case unless there is a diff. I do check things carefully before I came to a conclusion. See my comments on my page to that effect. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

User talk:Timothy Usher/re proposed finding

BhaiSaab, one of the diffs presented as evidence for my incivility was directed at you. While it's been several months since we've been in conflict, please take note of my apology.Timothy Usher 00:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BhaiSaab.Timothy Usher 04:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your question

What's up with the Mutaween questioning? That is not my IP address.--CltFn 03:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its an allusion based on conduct that I have observed. We all have to deal with the fact that not everyone sees the world as we do and that at least within the realm of Wikipedia , we have to allow other POVs than just one's own to be expressed freely, providing it meets the standards of the encyclopedia. The fact that some editors keep trying to discredit books that they have not read , such as Hagarism or Seein Islam as others saw it is does not speak highly of editing standards, does it? --CltFn 04:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is your POV. However since your version of the world is so immutable you should have nothing to worry about.--CltFn 04:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to comment?

There is a discussion on Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict talkpage about the inclusion of detail for Israel. I am of the view that Israel should be included but the detail is being continually removed by User:Tewfik.

Tewfik's argument is what he considers the illegality of Hezbollah under UN 1559. How this has a bearing on a balanced representation of aid to the combatants is never made clear. Tewfik has not removed recent requests of arms sales to Israel such as jet fuel and GBU-28's but removed the history of such arms shipments. I believe he is pushing the POV that aid to Israel is only in response to the current crisis or the illegality of Hezbollah under 1559. US aid to Israel is in fact a long standing agreement responsible for the size and makeup of the IDF. Without the aid they would not have a military capable of engaging in conflict. This is a question of balance in the article and if you can take a look and support my position (was working under 82.29.227.171) that would be great. RandomGalen 17:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for your kind welcome and support. It is most appreciated. Please pass this message to other users who may wish to voice their opinion on the matter of balance in the article. RandomGalen 17:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Æon ^{Insane Ward} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Æon ^{Insane Ward} 20:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2002

Yeah the Babri Mosque was destroyed 10 years prior to the burning of the train. Doesn't really make sense for it to be a response when they already had the 1993 Mumbai bombings etc.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could post the link to the puja article. Most people who would look at this probably have an idea of what a puja is, and mandir is also a wiki article.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I thought it was part of the onlinevolunteers.org link. Put it back in if you want.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The court proceedings are unsourced. Therefore I removed it. Also, many historians (including Muslim ones like Shaykh Muhammad Azamat Ali Kakorawi Nami, Mirza Jan and Abul Fazl) have stated proof of a Ram mandir on the site of the disputed structure. Keep in mind that Muslims destroyed Hindu temples, and Babar's legitimacy would have been greatened by destroying the greatest temple in North India. Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim prayers (prior to the tearing down of the disputed structure) weren't held there for at least 20-30 years. It ceased its utility as a Mosque. And a long line of historians/religious leaders/scribes of sultans have noted that a Ram temple had stood there. ITt only disputed by Hindu-haters among Muslims, who would like people to believe that tearing down one mosque is oppression of 140 million people. Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Salad Photo

Hi BhaiSaab!
Thanks for that! Um, if you email me using the "email this user" link, I'll email you back with my email to which you can send the image as an attachment. Is that confusing? Anyway see how you go. --Fir0002 00:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles). Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grey lady

Please look at New York Times. Grey lady is used there and NYT is regarded in the US as a "ultra-liberal" newspaper.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

You are removing warnings given to you by an administrator. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right...BhaiSaab ^talk 05:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you have been blocked for 15 mins for continually sticking unnecessary tags to one another's pages. As I said earlier, as serious contributors, please take the courtesy to spend 2min writing a couple of sentences stating your concerns. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no personal attacks.Timothy Usher 05:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss 2002 Gujarat violence/2006 revision changes please

Your last edit was biased and unacceptably long and polemical in tone. Please shorten it, discuss the additions on the talk page or I will have to request formal arbitration.Netaji 06:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-instated part of your edits and have paraphrased them appropriately.Netaji 06:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only part you took out was Ja Shri Ram, I think. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was pointless. Nobody puts "They chanted Allahu Akbar while the Taliban demolished statues of the Buddha" in an article on the Taliban, right?Netaji 18:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack?

Was this a personal attack? I'm sorry if you thought so.Netaji 18:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Violation

You are clearly aware of the Three Revert Rule and appear to have broken it at Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Remember that it is any for reversions on one article; they need not be the same reversion.

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

--Robdurbar 22:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BhaiSaab (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm absolutely sure I did not violate 3rr on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Please point out the diffs if so.

Decline reason:

Deliberatly editing to technically avoid breaking the rule - by actions such as using different tags - is still breaking the rule --Robdurbar 22:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

gladly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh&diff=prev&oldid=69644059
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh&diff=69644703&oldid=69644059
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh&diff=next&oldid=69644703
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh&diff=next&oldid=69645855
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh&diff=next&oldid=69647286

5>3 ST47 22:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The third and fifth diffs are not mine, nor is the 1st. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I count the reverts as so:

1: [5], [6], [7]

2: [8]

3: [9]

BhaiSaab ^talk 22:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the admin who blocked you: [10], [11], [12],

After that you repeatedly added tags to the article. This appears to be a way to disrupt the article without technically reverting the 3RR and was enough, in my mind, to warrent a short block. --Robdurbar 22:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that the policy states 'Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context.' I think such repeated editing falls under this. --Robdurbar 22:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of tags were explained on the talk page. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I feel that one sentence does not justify the editing patterns and was intentionally disruptive. However, I should warn you that I am a recently promoted admin. If you feel that I have made an error, please consult with another admin and I will hapily back down if he/she comes down on your side. Robdurbar 22:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can I consult with another admin when I'm blocked? I suggest that you ask another admin of your choosing, and if this block continues, block me for another reason, because I think it's obvious I didn't violate 3RR. If you choose not to consult with another admin, then feel free to consider this unblock request closed. Thanks. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, BhaiSaab has been caught violating 3RR {and blocked} for this more than once. Consult his block log here [13].Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that was only once. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that under its wider interpretation, a block on the basis of the Three Revert Rule (which notes that it is not a licence to revert 3 times) was appropriate. However, I have listed this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as I am still an admin newbie. --Robdurbar 22:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My inserting of tags was not meant to disrupt. The first time I inserted a tag (because of a section that had no sources which contradicted a cited section) it was reverted. I then used a contradiction tag, because had I fixed it myself, I would have violated 3rr. Bakaman fixed the contradiction and removed the tag, which is perfectly fine. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is my point exactly. Deliberatly editing to technically avoid breaking the rule - by actions such as using different tags - is still breaking the rule. --Robdurbar 22:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with you, but ok. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this appears to be a second 3RR offence, and seeing as though Netaji is also on a second offence, I feel it necessary to extend your block to 24 hours also for equality. Both of your did some content reverts and then did some tag reverts, so the nature of the edit-warring was the same also. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I technically didn't even break the rule, I find this unwarranted. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct both in the technical sense and in the spirit of the law. You did three content reverts. Then you added a tag, and revert-reinstated it after it was put back in. There are 4 concrete reverts there at least, as well as the initial tagging and the second new tag.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Then you added a tag, and revert-reinstated it after it was put back in." I did not re-insert any tag. You can check for yourself. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm sorry about my wrong comment. As to your earlier comment about technically breaking the rule - I did not intend to judge that at all, but the fact that Netaji also got 24hrs for a "2nd offence" - Rob seems to be under the impression that yours was the first, which was incorrect. I am not going to dispute his judgment call, as it is a judgment call, but he seems to have derived a formula for the block length, and seeing as he appears to have missed something while applying the formula, I have readjusted. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Hindus

Coming close to another 3RR violation, are we, Huzoor?Netaji 23:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In future I suggest you communicate any allegations of copyvio before deleting themNetaji 02:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Khwarizmi

The sentence in question is conjecture. The intro to his book , does not equate that he was a pious Muslim , it only equates to the fact that he made a statement, as many other writers during that time did . We cannot interpret what the statement equates and call that a fact. Perhaps you could take a look at the short Intellectual dishonesty article.--CltFn 01:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babri Mosque

Its not a daring statement. All the Muslims side are allegations, they have not provided any proof that the structure was not a temple at some point in time before Babar destroyed it and put the mosque (not even a functioning one for prayers) in its place.Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of my User Page

Since an admin has made the edits, messing with them is vandalism unless you can get Blnguyen to agree with your edits. Thus, RR rules etc don't apply. This is your first warning. Two more and I'll report you.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Netaji 22:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(S)he's not the one that removed the template from your page. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But (s)he restored it. Netaji 22:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my mind. You've been on wikipedia long enough. This is your FINAL warning. One more and it's off to the gallows.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Netaji 22:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Learn to substitute templates. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I turned out to be right: User_talk:Blnguyen#Removing_Sockpupeteer_Box BhaiSaab ^talk 21:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you add the Zionist bit?

Did you add the bit about the RSS being Zionist in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh article? Be a good chap and try to find some references alleging that they're Zionists. It would be the coolest thing if they advertised support for the great Zionist movement!Netaji 02:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he removed that part. I added it to show that Muslims call it both "Nazi" and "Zionist".Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled 3RR Block

It appears that you have blocked the three revert rule again - four or more times on the page in question, in 24 hours, you removed or aprt remoeved another editor's actions. Please avoid edit wars in future. THe block is for 24 hours - any future blocks may be longer. --Robdurbar 08:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Mistaken Block

OK, it appears that I miscounted on the last block; sorry. However, I strongly adivse that you try and avoid such edit wars - you have certainly come very close to four reverts (and may, under some interpretations, have done so). I had hoped that your last block might have encouraged you to be more careful. --Robdurbar 10:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I too want to see if you heeded Blnguyen and Robdurbar's words.Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is very difficult to be careful when one editor is dealing with a confrontational pack of two or more editors on articles. This was the second time you have miscounted, and I suggest you check the diffs next time before making a decision. Thank you for taking Netscott's advice and unblocking me. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult. Kind of like when a certain user used to back you up unconditionally.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry pressed minor by acident.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize for honest mistakes. If you care to look on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam or here you'll see that Timothy Usher does not at all support me unconditionally. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BhaiSaab, glad that your were unblocked. That was totally User:Robdurbar's call (remember the 3RR is not an entitlement to 3 reverts)... so you might want to thank him as well. The 3RR should probably be spelled out a bit clearer in terms of how the commenting out of material is viewed (I don't see doing so as a revert myself but I could see how others might). Take it easy. (→Netscott) 20:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my language by MY are you one popular bastard! :-D—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MikailMoolla (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure I would call myself "popular" but I guess you tend to get a lot of messages when editing controversial articles. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives
1 2