User talk:Timothy Usher/Archive 3

Gabriel

Okay, I will help you NPOVing the intro of Gabriel. But first I need to post something on the talk page of Jibril. Timothy, please do a favor to me. It may seem strange to you but Many Muslim have veneration for some words (especially "Allah"). They think God is better to be called by the names "Allah" ; "Al-Rahman" (the mercyful) and so on. Please, please understand them. It is quite natural that they want to use these words. Had I not seen how some Non-Muslims have misunderstood Islam because of these words, I would not have liked changing the arabic words to english ones. --Aminz 09:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I said "It may seem strange to you". Yes, I believe God looks at our heart rather than the language we speak. But let me find a peom from Rumi for you. Will be right back! --Aminz 10:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, here is the story: This is one of the most famous stories of Rumi. Here is a reworded version of the story that I was able to find: http://seekeraftertruth.com/?p=94

You don't need to read all the story, just the first few paragraphs. --Aminz 10:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

All I wanted to say is that those who sincerely venerate the words "Allah", "Al-Rahman" and so on, will be rewarded because of their sincerety. I would prefer to respect them. Who knows, maybe they are on the right path and I don't understand. --Aminz 10:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I am going to sleep. Good night! --Aminz 10:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Your apparent crusade-in-progress

Timothy, you're really going too far with this one. As I said on my talk page, massive changes to a whole slew of articles (particularly articles about a religion which the pattern of your edits indicates you oppose) is extraordinarily POV. The way to go about such changes is to first discuss it widely, then negotiate a compromise position with your critics, and then proceed. Doing otherwise simply smacks of bad faith. I have alerted the general community via the Village Pump (as I advised you to do) and the Muslim Guild (who are the folks most likely to be offended by your unilateralism). Please reconsider your current course of action. — JEREMY 10:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy, please be respectful. I am a Muslim and a member of the Muslim Guide community. Please stop attacking others. --Aminz 11:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank, Aminz.

Jeremy, in all honestly, there are elements of Islam vis-a-vis Judaism and Christianity (and between those two) which I support, and those which I oppose. To characterize those who don't agree on everything as "oppo[nents]" is the partisan's hallmark.

My goal is to place these debates within a common (WP:NPOV, WP:POVFORK) English-language framework. Is that to you "bad faith"? Or maybe just *wrong* faith?

Wikipedia is for all humanity. There cannot be segregation by religion or by POV. There can be no "right" for any religion to have "their own" special sections, any more than other religions have the "right" to exclude them from "their sections". The only good excuses for forking are length and topicality. In the case of Gabriel/Jibril, these aren't problems.

And your section title (Crusade) continues to offend. It is unfortunate that you cannot recognize, or care nothing for, your continued religiously-based denigration of non-Muslim editors.Timothy Usher 11:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I think it is very important that we would be able to redirect an article to a section of the other one. We should figure this out. --Aminz 11:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

So we should. All of us, you, me, Jeremy, Anonymous editor and whoever else cares, should join in this. While I don't advocate merging all these articles (translation to English being a seperate issue), as discussed, where this ought be done, section redirects are a significant value-add. It's already doable with simple html. There's simply no reason why they shouldn't be allowed. Timothy Usher 11:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I am in. (good night btw) --Aminz 11:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I imagine you simply haven't thought this through. What's going to happen to articles which already have the {{christianity}} template? What about aniconistic sensitivities in those articles already heavily illustrated? Is this going to be a case of the ethics of the JP cartoons article applied to the whole of the wikipedia? Neither of you have even attempted to address my suggestions about the way good faith editors should go about this kind of major change; Timothy just keeps repeating his unsupported contentions about how he believes things should be, and assuming — quite wrongly, I assure you — that I must be acting out of religiously-motivated bad faith. Take a step back, canvas other opinions. What's your hurry? — JEREMY 15:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You've raised some good points.

Though I agree it's possible to lead to clashes, I don't believe wikipedia can capitulate to aniconism, and I know I'm far from alone in this. If it means page protection and user blocks, then it does. Diverting Muslim editors away from articles for shared concepts by creating a series of halal versions can't be the answer. If they're warranted on other grounds (length, topicality), then fine, but not to avoid editor diversity for fear of clashes.

Short of image vandalism, both Christian and Islam-oriented articles can benefit from cross-examination.

The templates could conceivably get sticky. However, I think the solution would be to have both templates. Why not? The templates are properly there to direct readers to their areas of interest, not to demarc Christian and Muslim (etc.) sections of Wikipedia. If someone is offended by the presence of a template from another religion, they are looking at them in the wrong way. The Gabriel article currently has no such templates, but no one should object to adding them. As there are Jewish and Christian templates, I wonder why they're not there? Perhaps there can be an "Abrahamic religion" template which links to all three? I don't know. But to fork articles to accomodate the templates is for the tail to wag the dog.

Thanks for your commentary. I'll follow the discussions you've initiated.Timothy Usher 20:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi Timothy: yes, I can protect your user page for you. Are you sure you want the talk page protected as well? That would make it impossible for anons or new users to contact you. I've gone ahead and protected your user page: I will also sprotect your talk page if you want. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's on my watch list now: I'll sprotect it if the problem returns. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Same goes for me. --elias.hc 21:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both so much.Timothy Usher 21:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. I semi-protected your talk page as you requested. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Done, as requested. I don't understand what drives people to behave that way, but then it's a long time since I've been a kid. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ophanbot

I'm fine with it, I think it is actually doing a necessary job.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:52, 30 April 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)

Your suggestion

Hi Timothy,

I am thinking of making a link and summarizing all the arguments for both sides there. I talked about this with Anonymous Editor, [1] but it seems that we do not agree. Anyway, I consider your suggestion to be extremely important (and very beneficial to the Muslims at the end of the day) and I will be supporting you as much as I can. I think our arguments are dispersed here and there. Let’s gather and summarize everything together and go for another try. I’ll summarize my own arguments which are mostly directed to Muslim editors and will discuss them with Muslim editors. Any suggestion? --Aminz 03:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me discuss this with Muslim editors first. I am 100% supporting your idea! (I am leaving now but will be back soon) --Aminz 04:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Timothy,

I am very hopeful that I may be able to convince Muslim editors. This will be beneficial to Muslims themselves. Let me work on it. --05:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I remember your precious advice (rephrased) "If you don't change the wording of your edit, you're guaranteeing your text won't stick." Please give me some time. I'll have a closer look at it. thx.--Aminz 05:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

True. But I've tried to engage again and again - unlike Pecher, AE's made it clear he simply hasn't the time. His objections as seen on Talk:Isa are inscrutable and bizarre.Timothy Usher 05:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I can see your good faith. But I think since there are more Muslims who use the term "Allah", we should increase the weight of their POV in the intro.

"This word is used in Islam to refer to The Only God." is quite Qur'anic and precise. There is another word for "god" in arabic and it is "elah". The Qur'an I remember says somewhere that you should not worship any "elah" except "allah". So, the above sentence is correct. I can provide more evidences.

Ooops, Al-elah = Allah. Anyway, the above sentence that "allah" is refers to "The Only God" is still correct. I can show this in translations. --Aminz 06:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As to "The word Allāh is the Arabic term for "The God" in a glorified pronunciation."; well, I don't really know but this is a Muslim POV. Maybe it is better to say that "According to Muslims, The word Allāh is the Arabic term for "The God" in a glorified pronunciation."

As to "In other languages, it is often used to refer specifically to the Islamic concept of God", I tried to make it clear that strict monotheism is the main point in the Islamic concept of God. But maybe it was not a good change. --Aminz 06:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The starting point, I believe, is that Allah is Arabic, not "Islamic." It was the name of God before Muhammad, and as noted is the word for God for most Arabic-speaking monotheists. People are confusing Arabic with Islam. Gabriel does not tell Muhammad that he speaks in Arabic because it is magical or perfect, but rather so that he will understand.Timothy Usher 06:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

1.True, Allah is Arabic, not "Islamic."

2."Gabriel does not tell Muhammad that he speaks in Arabic because it is magical or perfect, but rather so that he will understand."

Well, no doubt that Muhammad only knew Arabic. But Arabic has a complex grammer. There is a relevant Qur'anic verse which I am trying to find but let me quote from Thomas McElwain:

It is likely that both Muslims and Christians do the text an injustice by judging it from criteria foreign to it. The ancient Hebrew language is extremely poor in expressions indicating the distinction between concrete and abstract. Thus words are used in Hebrew with both an abstract and concrete meaning. By contrast, the Arabic language is very precise in making such distinctions. It is easy to miscon­strue the Hebrew meaning of words by giving them concrete connotations where such did not exist at the time of writing. Thus both Muslims and Christians should adjust their thinking. Christians should realise that the Hebrew text is more foreign to their thinking than they presume in drawing anthropomorphic conclusions.

Muslims should realise that the Hebrew does not have the precision of the Arabic and expresses the same concepts of God as they are acquainted with in language as appropriate to them as the ancient Hebrew allows. It may be unfortu­nate that abstract thought was not so well expressed in ancient Hebrew as it was in medieval Arabic, but that is a fact that has to be accepted. Muslims have the advantage over Christians in that the Qur'an can prevent errors of misunderstanding the Hebrew text. Christians must face not only the linguistic and cultural differences of the text, but overcome centuries of prejudice in favour of non­ Biblical doctrines, such as the Trinity, the deity of Jesus, and the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus in atonement for sin.

Will be back soon. --Aminz 06:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy as you can see, I am really slow in typing. Sorry about that!--Aminz 06:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. In the meantime, ^{[Quran 12:2]}. The wrong interpretation is, it must be in Arabic to be understood. Gabriel is only being practical - Muhammad spoke Arabic.Timothy Usher 06:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, but God could choose a prophet among other nations. I remember there is another verse in which people ask Muhammad why the revelation wasn't sent in another language rather than Arabic. Maybe there is no such verse but I have a vague memory of it. --Aminz 06:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And according to Qur'an, he did, in many languages. Though I don't recall that verse, I don't doubt you've seen it, so forward when you find it (at your leisure).Timothy Usher 07:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find that verse. I think I confused it with ^{[Quran 41:44]}. And you are right there is a verse saying that God sent revelation to many people and for each people in their own language. It seems that people at the time of Muhammad were very skeptical about Arabic and were asking these kinds of questions. Anyway, there is this belief among Muslims that one reason that Qur'an is in Arabic is that Arabic had/has a very complex grammar. They believe that at the time of Muhammad the language was developed enough that God may talk about necessary everything in Qur'an + the text could be preserved. --Aminz 07:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that Muslim POV should dominate, by the simple fact that the overwhelming number of Arabic speakers are Muslim rather than Christian, Jewish, etc. Don't both versions satisfy this?

If not, let's tweak the intro, rather than revert to an incoherent version of the article.

"This word is used in Islam to refer to The Only God." is quite Qur'anic and precise. There is another word for "god" in arabic and it is "elah". The Qur'an I remember says somewhere that you should not worship any "elah" except "allah". So, the above sentence is correct. I can provide more evidences."

As you say. Ilah (elah) is "god", Allah < al-ilah is "God" (< lit. "the god"). "The Only" is wholly redundant in English. 'God' sums it up. It's not a theological POV war, just copy editting.Timothy Usher 06:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I know "The Only" is redundant but I think it emphasizes the strict monotheism of Islam. What do you think? --Aminz 07:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

My sense as a native speaker is that "the only god" makes sense, but "the only God" doesn't. However, I'm happy to see my improvements (hardly finished) restored as a basis for continuing collaboration rather than thoughtlessly tossed in the garbage in an edit war. I'll take a look at the particulars tomorrow.Timothy Usher 07:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at ^{[Quran 2:133]} please. Thanks --Aminz 07:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've done so. What do you mean by this?Timothy Usher 08:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It says: "the one Allah" if we literally translate it, it will become The One God. --Aminz 08:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That might make sense in Arabic style, but it is redundant in English.Timothy Usher 08:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is my personal preference to keep it since it is a literal translation of a Qur'anic phrase. This is a minor point anyway. --Aminz 08:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you please have a look at the article Allah? I have made whatever change I wanted. I expect Anonymous Editor should like it now. Thanks --Aminz 08:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure and Thank you too! Good night! --Aminz 08:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, please self revert. Please give me time first. AE may report you for breaking the rules or may block you. Please, please! Self-revert. I will discuss this in details with all Muslim editors. I believe this change is good for Muslims at the end of the day, so I expect they should accept it after I provided enough arguments. --Aminz 09:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Self-revert on Isa. In my POV, you have not broken any rules. But in other people's POV maybe. --Aminz 09:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am also interested to see the rule AE says that prevents translating Arabic-language article titles into English. Let's see what happens. Good Night and Take Care --Aminz 09:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I think you are really really tired now. --Aminz 08:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, you should take a rest; you should be tired. I'll start my work tomorrow God wills. --Aminz 08:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wisdom

"The beginning of wisdom is the ability to call things by their right names." That's not actually an opinion I subscribe to, but it seemed appropriate. On a less controversial page, could you take a look at Elisha when you get a chance? Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Timothy,

I see that lots of things has happened since I left wiki. I should go over it from the beginning. You guys should be really tired. Maybe you should both take a breath of fresh air! --Aminz 05:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, this maybe aside but I really liked "The beginning of wisdom is the ability to call things by their right names." I know it is not good to give the religous color to everything but in the story of Adam and Eve, God taught all the names to Adam. --Aminz 05:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't interpret those verses in this way (that Hebrew Language is the first one). I believe (the Qur'anic account of the story that I am well aware of) story stresses that the reason God created a creature who sheds bloods and does mischief in earth was that it is not possible to create someone who has the same his linguist abilities but at the same time is peaceful. I don't know what is the connection between these two.

Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not." And He taught Adam all the names, then showed them to the angels, saying: Inform Me of the names of these, if ye are truthful. They said: Be glorified! We have no knowledge saving that which Thou hast taught us. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower, the Wise. He said: O Adam! Inform them of their names, and when he had informed them of their names, He said: Did I not tell you that I know the secret of the heavens and the earth? And I know that which ye disclose and which ye hide. ^{[Quran 2:30]}

Now, my interpretation of the reason having linguist capabilities is that much important that God must create a creature with that capabilities even at the expense of happening of bad things, is that God wants to have linguist relationship with human. Thanks --Aminz 06:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, now I see your point.Timothy Usher 07:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Project Page under construction

Hello Timothy,

I have created a project page for the Arabic/English translation issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aminz/Project_Page

I believe even if we don’t arrive at consensus, it is very important to discuss this issue there. Any comments? Thanks --Aminz 10:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Abuse

I don't really know. There has been some discussion of this lately at Wikipedia:Abuse reports. I'm going to request a checkuser. Checkuser won't give us an IP address. It's one think to say, "Our pages are being vandalised by this IP address;" It's another to say, "So-and-So from your school is harrassing me." On Elisha, no hurry. Seeing the controversy on Isa just brought it to mind. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

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 an article to a previous version 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. -- Tawker 19:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Hello. I have blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring on Isa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Please do not do that, especially as you reverted an article to your preferred version immediately after it was unprotected. Thank you.--Sean Black ^(talk) 19:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|reasons below}}Timothy Usher 20:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, I couldn't get the reasons to display correctly in the template box, so present them here:

• I’d made no edits between when I was warned 19:21, 2 May 2006 and when I was blocked 19:52, 2 May 2006, and was not given the opportunity to respond to the warning, nor to heed it.
• I didn’t break 3RR (yes, I know, this doesn't mean I can't be blocked, but it's still worth mentioning).
• I made no more reverts than User:Anonymous editor, who was repeatedly reverting changes I’d made - but he’s not been blocked.Timothy Usher 20:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• The IP address in question is 67.188.40.64.

Blocked assistance

Ah! Who blocked you! --Aminz 22:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I can see your good faith. I am behind you at whatever expense. Even if I get kicked out of wikipedia for this, I will do it. --Aminz 02:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Aminz. Pecher's also registered his displeasure on Tom harrison's talk page. It's very unfortunate that is has to be played this way - and "played" is the only word appropriate to such a capricious action, as per my points above.Timothy Usher 03:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, Aminz, would you be so kind as to explain to Anonymous editor, who writes on Talk:Isa “You already admitted it was arbitrary.” [2] - I tried to correct him, but he persists in misinterpreting “Yes, were they arbitrary.” [3] as, “Yes, they were arbitrary,” rather than the correct meaning, “Yes, if they had been arbitrary [as you said they were, but they are not].”

Limited English skills are and should be no barrier to contribution, but when they serve as the basis for a charge against my character (that I would be doing something I believed arbitrary), and as he’s either not listened to or not believed my attempt to correct him, it’s become a problem. He might be more willing to learn this from you.

In this same diff, he claimed I’d violated WP:3RR, indicating that a refresher on arithmetic might also be of use (though as I’m blocked, I suppose it served him well enough.)Timothy Usher 04:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I wrote my opinion regarding this issue to Anonymous Editor. As to WP:3RR, the rule reads: "In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day." So, the admin who has blocked you has considered your case to be extreme I think. --Aminz 05:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We can only guess, as Sean Black has not responded to my inquiries. As for "...immediately after [the page] was unprotected"...this I find odd. To the uninitiated, the most straightforward interpretation of page unprotection is that it is now okay to edit the page (otherwise, why not simply maintain the protection?) Perhaps I'm looking at this too linearly?Timothy Usher 05:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I can not see any reason for you getting blocked either. --Aminz 06:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Might I be of assistance here? Netscott 07:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I've already asked Kelly, and it was explained that I'd been blocked for edit warring, but no attempt has been made to answer any of the three points above. Although you and I disagree on the particulars of the content dispute, I think you'll agree that there are, prima facie, some similarities in our experiences. Having put the template up, I really don't know what else to do.

I'm not so concerned about not being able to edit for 24hrs, as I've other things to do, and they were being reverted anyhow, but it does upset me that I've now an unjustified tick mark on my record, without even the decency of an explanation, much less an opportunity to discuss it.

If you can think of something, it'd be deeply appreciated. Thanks for stopping by.Timothy Usher 07:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• I hope that I can be of some assistance. Well the primary point of contention on your editing would be the rapidity that you reverted to your version on Isa after it's unprotection. I (as I'm sure others do) would tend to view that as bad form. I'm still reviewing what has occurred fully here. Tell me, do you know how to use IRC? Netscott 07:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It was straightfoward enough to me - the last edit before page protection was a wholesale revert from my labors, and as, unlike the other editor (who, let it be acknowledged, has today shown the class not to kick me when I'm down), I'd only reverted twice in that 24 period, so, when the page was unprotected, I restored my edits. It never crossed my mind that I might have been violating some unstated understanding.

IRC is internet relay chat? I've never done it, but I'd like to learn. What do I do?Timothy Usher 08:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sean Black's block states (to me, you can't see it) "see our (blocking policy)", yet I've seen this policy and it is still entirely unclear to me what relation any of this has to my block. If I'm to learn a lesson, it would help were this lesson clearly stated, without flippant references to irrelevant pages.Timothy Usher 08:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me tell you Timothy. Sean Black DOESN'T WANT to answer to you. I asked him/her on his/her talk page to tell you the reasons but he/she is refusing to do so while is editing other articles. --Aminz 08:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I asked Sean Black again to answer to your questions. Why doesn't he/she post the reasons here? I am going to sleep. I can't do anything. --Aminz 08:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Irc

Well for IRC, search IRC software for your operating system. Once you've got that downloaded I'll walk you through how to get into Wikipedia IRC channel were you might be able to discuss your block with other admins in a slightly more rapid fashion. I suspect that it was through IRC or IM software that Sean Black was notified to block you without much mention of your "edit warring". As I only saw a minor mention of it by User:Anonymous editor on your 3RR report re: his talk page. Netscott 08:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's downloaded. What now?Timothy Usher 09:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What software have you downloaded? Netscott 09:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ircle 3.1 and 3.1.2, on two platforms.Timothy Usher 09:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok well go to Wikipedia:IRC_channels and try clicking on the #wikipedia link. If you client is setup correctly it should automatically load Ircle and go to the wikipedia channel. Netscott 09:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, failed to mention that you may need to restrart your browser first for the above to work properly. Netscott 09:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It keeps telling me I've an erroneous nickname. I can't figure out the syntax for the nick command, or what is the protocol for acceptable nicknames.Timothy Usher 09:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Try to enter " /nick T.Usher " in the main window. Then " /server irc.freenode.net " followed by " /join #wikipedia ". Netscott 09:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm getting data, but none of it's dated. How does one locate the relevant thread?Timothy Usher 09:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please copy and paste the last few lines of data you're getting. I should be able to help you with that info. Netscott 10:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The most recent lines of text are:

CableModem moos^2

zocky bumm13, for speakers of english, maybe even all IE languages

bumm13 heh, not quite the same league, though

bumm13 we do suck at learning foreign languages, overall :(

zocky lack of exposure

bumm13 often, yes

zocky in most of europe, people speak at least 5 languages in the 500 km radius around you

bumm13 yeah

bumm13 Spanish is the only major secondary language in the U.S.Timothy Usher 10:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok you are in the channel, from here you can start typing messages. This is basically a chat area. Netscott 10:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to check the history, to see how "Sean Black was notified to block [me]"?

His failure to respond to my or Aminz' inquiries suggests that the probability that he'd taken this action after his own judgement is approximately zero. I can sympathize: it must be awkward to justify one's actions when performed at the behest of another: the most reasonable conclusion at this point is that he himself doesn't know why this block was said to be warranted, and thus is incapable of addressing it.

Beyond that, it's of no use this time around - supposedly, I'll be unblocked tomorrow, we'll see. I'm mainly interested in recovering the history, as we might rid ourselves of the sorry pretense that what appears to be an admin meat puppet acted of his own spontaneous accord.Timothy Usher 10:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, well there's not really an easy way to go about that particularly because there are several ways in which one can message (via either IRC of IM) so finding such a message would be a bit like searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack (and the needle might not even be discoverable particularly if it's lost in IM space). If Anonymous editor did use IRC he no doubt used the admin's chat area which is only accesible by admins (another admin is liable to have a history of the chat found in that channel). The way in which you were blocked seemingly from nowhere is virtually identical to how I was blocked on Muhammad and I too distinctly had the impression that the editor who blocked me didn't review the situation prior to committing the actual block. Your best bet would be to ask Sean Black how it was that he came to be the one to block you. Netscott 10:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

He's not responded to messages on this page, or on his user page, and I don't give my e-mail to those I've no reason to trust. I'll ask when I'm unblocked.Timothy Usher 10:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, are you still blocked? Your 24 hours block should have been expired by now. --Aminz 21:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

my pleasure! --Aminz 23:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Anonymous editor

As per recent understandings of ownership of talk pages, please confine your comments to this section. I have moved your comments here. On article talk pages (e.g. Talk:Islam), you've affected the habit of interpolating your comments between those of other editors, and of substantially altering your comments after other editors have responded thereto. I'll not allow that here. You wrote:

You violated the 3rr on the Isa page. As soon as it was unprotected (6 hours later) you fully reverted to your own version for the fourth time in 24 hours. [4]. I mentioned this 3rr violation on the talk page of the Isa article in case you are wondering about it. Please stop trying to get out of a 3rr rule violation. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 12:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Let us consult the history [5]. Not counting your most recent mass revert [6], here are:

• my past four edits

09:01, 1 May 2006

02:55, 2 May 2006,

03:13, 2 May 2006,

10:54, 2 May 2006

• your past four edits

02:04, 1 May 2006

01:35, 2 May 2006,

02:56, 2 May 2006,

03:17, 2 May 2006,

While neither of us had violated WP:3RR, despite your now-triplicated claim, you had four edits in 25:13, whereas I had four edits in 25:53. And then beyond these, you've one more.Timothy Usher 12:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Despite the evidence posted above, you've posted:

• “Timothy however has violated a real 3rr on an article...” 19:36, 2 May 2006
• “...only for reverting to your badly written version and violating the 3rr rule while doing it.” 19:47, 2 May 2006
• “Timothy violated the 3rr on the Isa page and that's why he was blocked. As soon as it was unprotected (6 hours later) he fully reverted to your his version for the fourth time in 24 hours.”12:19, 3 May 2006

Can you substantiate your very specific claim?Timothy Usher 12:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As Anonymous editor has, true to form, altered his comments above post facto, I've restored his original comments while moving his additions here:

Frankly that itself should have a block to give you a break from reverting. The point here is that it's a controversial and arbitrarily changed version which you are already involved in for discussion. It's wrong for you to make people accept your version by repeatedly reverting and not accepting any compromise. It's your version that's the one with so all names changed and with many major edits. You shouldn't just disrupt the article because the title isn't your pov. I have been making comments in the discussion for all the time it's going on. Participate instead of the reverts, it won't get you anywhere. You have started trying to make people accept your arbitrarily changed versions on several articles. Reverting to your version right as soon as the article was unprotected for the very same reason of you changing all the names is wrong.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 12:55, 3 May 2006

AE, one problem we're having a lot lately is, anytime your claims are falsified, you change the subject (only to return to them later). As I've been blocked after your claims, it's no longer funny. We shall therefore stick to the subject. You stated very specifically that I'd "fully reverted to [my] version for the fourth time in 24 hours." That is a definite and verifiable claim. So, substantiate.Timothy Usher 13:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

AE, I'm happy to discuss all this, but for now I'd like to stick to the subject of the discussion. At 12:13 and 12:19 respectively, on the third of May 2006, you wrote, "As soon as it was unprotected (6 hours later) you fully reverted to your own version for the fourth time in 24 hours.", and, “As soon as it was unprotected (6 hours later) he fully reverted to your his version for the fourth time in 24 hours.” Was that true, or was that false?

As for "altering [your] comments", I will preserve your original comments anytime you alter them after other editors have responded to them. You are always invited to clarify what you mean by writing, "What I meant was...", or a variant thereof, in response.Timothy Usher 22:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Let the record show that User:Anonymous editor accused me of violating WP:3RR 12:13, 3 May 2006, then, after his charges had been decisively rebutted 12:38, 3 May 2006 above altered his previous comments to include other points, so as to give the illusion that they'd not been addressed 12:55, 3 May 2006.Timothy Usher 14:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: Besides that

Everybody has the right to edit wikipedia, even Muslims. MuslimsofUmreka 05:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by join the talk page, can you please elaborate? Do you mean the Islamism talk page? MuslimsofUmreka 05:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes.Timothy Usher 05:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, i'll remove the most eduacted sentence. MuslimsofUmreka 05:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus (prophet of Islam)

How was this suggestion as a title for the Isa article? --Aminz 05:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As discussed with Tom, I think it's POV, and violates the style manual for Islam-related article:

• It says Jesus is a prophet, with which many wouldn't agree

I think the same argument goes with prophets of Islam since this will imply Islam is a true religon at a deeper level. The question is that how much we should be precise. --Aminz 06:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• It's saying that he's a prophet of Islam, which suggests him to have been a Muslim, as per our discussion on Talk:Muhammad.

prophets of Islam article defines it as those who are prophet according to Islam. I think this is a deeper interpretation of this title. --Aminz 06:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

On the plus side:

• It's in English, and as such informative to English-speaking readers just as "Isa" is not, as one would know what being discussed from the title alone (as it should be, wherever possible).Timothy Usher 06:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that the Jesus article is not titled "Jesus Christ". The "prophet" issue is problematic. In the case of Prophets of Islam, it may be unavoidable. It's hard to see how else we might say this. Hmm, I'll think about this.Timothy Usher 06:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, Something like Jesus (Prophet of Islam in Muslim belief) maybe more NPOV. In any case, I have already agreed on using this because I saw it doesn't produce any confusion. Maybe we could use something else but my concerns are satisfied with this suggestion. --Aminz 06:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Also: Judaism's view of Jesus, not Jesus (imposter of Judaism).

We might look more closely at the main article Jesus, and ask if Muslim views are underrepresented? It's strange to me that there's been so little concern about this. A common attitude seems to be, "you non-Muslims have "your" articles, and we Muslims have "ours". It was Autoshade who first alerted me to the whole problem, on talk Muhammad. I'd asked him why he didn't vandalize the image on the God article - in theory, an image of God presenting a much clearer case of blasphemy than does an image of Muhammad. He said something like, that article's not about the real God Allah, so it doesn't matter.

"Jesus (Prophet of Islam in Muslim belief)" is, though NPOV, ugly. It's the way we'd do it in text, but as a title, it doesn't work.

Anyhow, I'll give it some thought. Right now, I'm more concerned with clearing this capricious block and associated false accusations from my username.Timothy Usher 06:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

These are good points Timothy but my main concern was avoiding misunderstandings. Anything that doesn't include Isa is fine with me. --Aminz 06:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on that. Your arguments on the talk page were very strong, on point and persuasive, as was Kwamikigamis. Better unavoidable POV than baffling foreign terms.Timothy Usher 07:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Timothy. Also, thanks for paying my attention to Jesus article. Gosh, I couldn't believe the quality of the Muslim POV in such an important article. Thanks --Aminz 07:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, also take a look at God. There was a pathetic section on the Islamic view called "Qur'anic conceptions of God." I eliminated the stupid parts, and there was hardly anything left. Someone needs to expand this - my idea is to first bring some order to Islamic concept of God and then see if there's any reason not to paste all the remaining text into this section in God.Timothy Usher 10:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Timothy, I'll have a look at it. --Aminz 21:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey checkout the Muwatta template

Template:Muwatta «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 13:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Najis (ritual uncleanness)

Thought you might be interested in this article. I and Pecher are working on it now. thx. --Aminz 21:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes Aucuman helped a lot but the issue is not completely solved. We need to make some changes in order to avoid overgeneralization as Aucuman said. --Aminz 06:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you also please have a look at the Dhimmi article and my comments below. Thanks. --Aminz 06:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

Hello Timothy, I was about to initiate a report on WP:AN/I regarding User:Anonymous editors's false accusations and User:Sean Black's apparent meatpuppetry stemming from it but I notice you appear to preparing your own report. I'm very ready to add to it once it's up... please notify me when you've made the report. ;-) Netscott 21:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes User:Sean Black's dismissal (with a simple comment "Blech") of several editors' inquiries relative to the issues surrounding your block strongly motivates me to take this issue to the hilt and maximize the spread of knowledge relative to their genuine lack of good faith. Such a WP:ANI/I report is highly merited towards ends of establishing a pattern of this type of behavior on their parts. Netscott 21:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I understand that you want to send a report and I think you should do that for at least two good reasons: 1. there is an unfair mark of getting blocked on your account. 2. Both Sean Black and Anonymous Editor didn't accept that they made a mistake at least in one particular false accusation (i.e. passing 3RR). It is none of my business but beyond these I request you to mercifully forgive other possible mistakes (such as Sean's delay in answering you back and so on). --Aminz 09:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure an AN/I reaport will achieve anything because no administrative action is required here. In such a situation, perhaps the best way to proceed will be to file an RfC. Pecher ^Talk 09:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Deskana has advised me that an AN/I report is the best way to proceed for this narrow purpose: to clear my name of Anonymous editor and Sean Black's unfounded claims. The issue of general conduct is perhaps more aptly addressed by an RfC, as you suggest. There does seem to be a pattern on AE's part (as we've no reason thusfar (?) to think Sean Black anything but an unwitting meat puppet of AE in this matter), and if someone else opens an RfC, I'll have much to say.

What concerns me is, you'll often see it written on such noticeboards "so-and-so has been blocked before for so-and-so." I don't want this ever to be said about me unaccompanied by a big asterisk reading, "this block was determined to be in error."

All I want is for Sean Black and Anonymous editor to publically and unambigiously recant the false claim upon which the block was explicitly based without then changing the subject to some other point of contention, as per the discussion above.

If it's to be a blot on anyone's record, it should be theirs, not mine; as I spoke truthfully and acted in good faith - as did all of you - just as the two of them clearly did not, as evidenced by the diffs...

...and most recently and egregiously by Sean Black's blanking of five editors' inquiries without response beyond, "Blech"20:08, 4 May 2006. Despite my unblock request, and all this discussion, he's not seen it fit to appear on this talk page since my block. At least on WP:AN/I we can be pretty sure (?) he won't blank the section.Timothy Usher 10:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, particularly I couldn't believe that Sean removed those comments from his talk page. Besides all points you mentioned, Thank you SO MUCH for ignoring others. --Aminz 10:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User gay

If you want this template to be deleted, you should list it at WP:TFD and see how the vote goes. Simply voicing your opinion on the talk page won't accomplish anything. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 02:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

One template deletion is enough for me now. I was merely upset that this template had been used to vandalize my (now-protected) user pages, and wonder how many instantiations are legitimate relative to vandalism. Don't know the answer. It's an odd situation, in that some editors might be proud of its presence, while others might take it as an insult. I'm not really sure why we need all these userboxes, but I suppose if people want them...hey, there's a simple solution: WP should not allow editors to place userboxes on other users' pages. Is there any instance where this would be legitimate? I'm too busy to deal with this any further, but thanks for your note, and I hope I've clarified the nature of my concern.Timothy Usher 07:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It's considered vandalism to add unwanted userboxes to other people's userpages, so you should have placed a warning on their talk page. Also, something being used as a vandalism tool doesn't mean that it should be deleted. For example, I could slap a television infobox on userpages as vandalism, but that doesn't mean we should delete it. As for userboxes in general, I'll agree that some people use far too many. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 07:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi article

Timothy, can you please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=51648639&oldid=51615364

The fact tag was added to intro since in Farhansher's edit, the literal meaning of "Dhimmi" was "protected" and in Pecher's was "tutelage". This was reflected in my edit summaries. Pecher removed this.

"Dhimmis were guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying a special capitation tax known as the jizya and accepting various restrictions and legal disabilities. "

was changed to

"Dhimmis were guaranteed their personal safety and security of property. They had to pay a special capitation tax known as the jizya and accepting various restrictions and legal disabilities. "

Because if one looks closely, he could see an implicit unsourced (p => q) in the first sentence. Again this was reflected in my edit summaries.

Section title "==== Aleged Humiliation of dhimmis====" vs "==== Humiliation of dhimmis===="

The sub-titles should not pursuade the reader to any position as the title of the articles should not. Readers can read the text and end up in whatever conclusion they want.

I added the fact tag was added to "Islamic law stipulates that dhimmis must be belittled for their rejection of Islam; humiliating them was an act of piety, a fulfillment of divine will" since it talks about "Islamic Law". We have 5 schools of Islamic Laws. This sentence is general and unreferenced.

Could you please help us in this controversy.

Thanks, --Aminz 09:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy I can not really understand why my version is actually a little more critical of Sharia. But in anycase, Can you please explain why "I agree that Pecher's version is marginally more neutral in that it's less interpretive"

I will be happy to hear why you think my changes were towards adding NPOV. Thanks.

P.S. I'll have a look at Muslim soon. --Aminz 07:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. My misunderstanding. --Aminz 07:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning can be true but I like my own version since I feel it is more NPOV. --Aminz 07:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Timothy for your contributions to the article. --Aminz 09:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Thanks. I appreciate it. I liked your edits. --Aminz 09:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Your renaming of the subtitle was good("Personal Freedom" to "Enslavement"). I haven't thought about the general organization of the article. --Aminz 09:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreement that you did not violate 3RR

I have looked carefully at the reverts that Timothy and Anonymous editor made to the Isa article.

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 see that Timothy made five reverts. I cannot see any case where four of those five were made within a 24-hour period. However, Anonymous editor's third, fourth, fifth, and sixth reverts were made in a ten-and-a-half-hour period. Yet Timothy was blocked, and Anonymous editor was not.

It seems there was another battle going on at the talk page of Anonymous editor; I have not reviewed it. At 06:59, on 2 May, Timothy reported Anonymous editor for 3RR at his own talk page. I saw the report, and did not think Anonymous editor should be blocked. The policy is not really clear on this. In practice, admins do not block for 3RR violations on one's own talk page, but I wouldn't ever say that it was guaranteed that one could do it without being blocked. I personally feel that if someone removes a post from his talk page, there is evidence that he has seen it, and it's still in the history if you need it for records (perhaps in an Arbcom case), so it's only harassment to keep adding it. I'd make an exception in the case of real vandals who remove warnings from their talk pages.

At 19:36 on 2 May, Anonymous editor added to the report that Timothy had made on him, saying, Timothy however has violated a real 3rr on an article which was just unprotected and his arbitrary moves are equivalent to vandalism.

Note that WP:Vandalism says:

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia.

Timothy was blocked by Sean Black four minutes later, at 19:40, probably as a result of Anonymous editor's post. His block log does not actually say that he violated 3RR. It says, Edit warring on Isa - Article was protected, only for him to revert *again* immediatly after it was unprotected.

On 4 May at 11:27, Timothy posted to WP:AN/3RR, asking that either the diffs for his alleged violation should be supplied or that the accusation should be withdrawn. As far as I can see, there has been no response.

Anonymous editor made at least four claims that Timothy violated 3RR; the claims were made at 19:36 on 2 May, 19:47 on 2 May, 12:13 on 3 May, 12:19 on 3 May. No diffs have been supplied, despite requests, nor have the claims been withdrawn. Sean Black made 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 at 19:52 on 2 May to tell Timothy he had blocked him.

A few comments:

• I have not read the talk page of the article. Nor have I looked at the quality of the changes. I have looked at the history of the talk page, and note that Timothy made many posts there prior to his alleged 3RR violation, so I presume that discussion was taking place.

• I am aware that editors can be blocked for edit warring even if they do not make a fourth revert in 24 hours. I would expect that that would only occur in the case of repeat offenders. Indeed, it is common to give a shorter block, or even no block, in the case of a first offence.

• The block seems to have been given at least partly because Timothy reverted to his version as soon as the article had been unprotected. However, the {{protect}} template specifically says "Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version", and it is generally understood that pages are in fact sometimes locked in the less satisfactory version. (I have no opinion as to whether or not that was the case here.) I do not endorse a revert to one's preferred version straight after an unprotection, but do not consider it such an egregious offence as to necessitate a 24-hour block, without warning, for an editor with an otherwise unblemished record.

• If nobody may revert after an unprotection, it seems odd that Anonymous editor then reverted back to his preferred version, and has not been rebuked.

As the text of a block log remains in the record and cannot be altered, I am happy to state, as an administrator who looked into this case, that I am fully satisfied that Timothy did not commit a 3RR violation, that the "edit warring" was on both sides, and that both parties reverted once after the article had been unprotected.

AnnH ♫ 13:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You know according to AnnH here Anonymous editor violated 3RR himself. Maybe you should just file a report for his violation and do a little balancing?

Netscott 01:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

His abuse of authority (and editting privileges generally) goes well beyond "edit warring" (which, as Ann's comments suggest, requires two parties). Still thinking about it.

For now, I'll say - and in light of the hideous way he's treated me, and the dishonesty he's displayed so relentlessly, I'm not happy to point this out - but the last AE revert AnnH cited was on 3 May, not 2 May. Neither of us violated 3RR.

However, Ann is quite right that AE began the "edit war", reverting a large number of uncontested changes (adding links to Qur'anic cites, for one), along with the English translations which he falsely labelled as blockable vandalism.Timothy Usher 03:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy is quite right. I examined his diffs very carefully, but was, unfortunately, less careful in the case of Anonymous editor, who had not been accused of 3RR. Anonymous editor's last edit took place on 3 May, not 2 May as I originally wrote. I have amended my comment, and I apologize to Anonymous editor for the error. I stand over what I wrote otherwise, with regard to the number of times each party reverted, the fact that Timothy did not revert four times within a 24-hour period, and the fact that he has been accused of doing so several times and that the accusations have not been withdrawn. AnnH ♫ 06:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ann, your words exemplify the integrity I've come to expect from you, and which ought be expected of all editors, especially admins.

As per the discussion above, Anonymous editor had four edits in 25:13, whereas I had four edits in 25:53, so even by the "electric fence" logic (which isn't a 3RR policy, but merely a caveat that edit warring can be blockable even if it doesn't fall under 3RR), AE was marginally closer to that fence, yet escaped without so much as a warning. Additionally, he's reverted twice more than I have, one of which reverts still stands, despite growing support for the English-language (and cited) version on the talk page.Timothy Usher 06:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I will be away from Wikipedia for around two weeks or so

Hi Timothy,

Due to my final exams, I will be away from Wikipedia for around two weeks or so. Take care and Cheers. --Aminz 08:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility on Adolf Hitler

Your recent accusations on Talk:Adolf Hitler were not WP:CIVIL. They also appear to be baseless. Apparently, a checkuser has already cleared MikaM of all sockpuppet charges. Al 03:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Thanks for your message.Timothy Usher 04:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Jonathan235 00:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan235, I appreciate your confidence in me. Perhaps one day I should consider taking on such a responsibility. For now, however, I must respectfully decline. Thank you, once again, for your support.Timothy Usher 01:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Template

After some thought I decided to create this smiley template, as I thought most of the arguments in the talk pages are due to misinterpretaion of what is being said, hopefully these smileys will help us (at least me !!) communicate in a much more friendly manner. Hope you all will like it.

• {{smiley|1}} will produce

(Friendly smile)

• {{smiley|2}} will produce

(Confident)

• {{smiley|3}} will produce

(Mocking)

• {{smiley|4}} will produce

(Hysterical)

• {{smiley|5}} will produce

(Hurt)

• {{smiley|6}} will produce

(Very Sorry)

• {{smiley|7}} will produce

(Sleepy)

• {{smiley|8}} will produce

(You are Nive)

• {{smiley|9}} will produce

(I am not happy)

• {{smiley|0}} will produce

(No Comments)

 «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 20:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"The prophet"

Timothy, I think AE was within the informal rules we've worked out. We don't cap prophet and MOST of the time we just say Muhammad but ... to reduce stylistic monotony, we sometimes say "the prophet" or "the Islamic prophet". It's not a claim that he was speaking the truth, just that people regarded him a prophet. I'm OK with your change, but it might be nice to be more diplomatic (yeah, yeah, I know, not my specialty) in making it. Zora 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's why I used the term. It's okay to use "the prophet." BhaiSaab 09:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If the goal is to reduce monotony, there are a number of appelations one might use. The religious leader? The warlord? The theocrat? Why not? All three are arguably more neutral, as they speak only to known roles in the material world which neither Muslims or non-Muslims would deny, albeit with subjective connotations...but these are even more present in "prophet".Timothy Usher 10:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue has to do with capitalization. If I used "Prophet", that would suggest that wikipedia is making a statement of the validity of his prophecy. On the other hand "prophet" with an uncapitalized "p" makes no such suggestion. This discussion has occured several times before. BhaiSaab 10:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it does. Maybe capitalization is worse, but, if someone is only making stuff up (I don't believe this applies to Muhammad, though I *do* believe that he made *some* of it up - we can discuss this if you've a high tolerance for heresy), as many would claim, that person isn't even a lowercase prophet.

It's absurd to suppose that we can now write "the prophet Muhammad" anytime we'd wish to write "The Prophet Muhammad", and it would be okay because of the uncaps. Consider my alternate examples above. They're biased, and prophet is even more so.

And isn't that why people enjoy writing it, really? My idea is that God doesn't care what's written in wikipedia before "Muhammad." It's only my personal idea, but really, he just doesn't. We can't affect Muhammad's fate, and we certainly can't affect God's.Timothy Usher 10:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"It's absurd to suppose that we can now write "the prophet Muhammad"" - Why? You'll see authors use "prophet" all the time in their books. The decision was reached by consensus. I don't really mind that you've changed it, but Zora just told you for future reference. BhaiSaab 10:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Authors can write whatever they like. They can even say so-and-so is THE Prophet, and you'll go to Hell if you don't believe it. Then, they're not on wikipedia, so aren't obliged to follow WP:NPOV. Was there a broad consensus on wikipedia to make an exception for Muhamamad, or just a compromise between a handful of editors to solve an edit war on one page or another?Timothy Usher 10:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to (secular) authors of scholarly works. As for your question, I'm pretty sure it was the latter. BhaiSaab 10:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was an informal consensus worked out on talk pages and at the Village Pump. So it wasn't just the editors working on Islam-related articles, it was the whole community that said it was OK to use "the prophet" occasionally. I suppose we really should draft a set of guidelines for writing Islam-related articles, that would have this sort of thing.

Some authors of scholarly works cap prophet, which surprises me and makes me a bit uncomfortable. But I should be fair and point this out. Zora 11:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Isa move

Locking the page was not meant to be an endorsement of a version. It was meant to return the page to its pre-controversy state and allow those that wish to have it moved to file a RFM. —Aiden 02:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

History of slavery in the United States

I think so, but unfortunately I don't have any information about this. Of course, slavery was cruel but it was part of the economical system and unavoidable. Yes, It is true that in some places slaves were treated bad but not everywhere. It varied from place to place. The current economical system has its own problems of course. I remember this quote from someone that every regime or economical systems criticizes the previous regime or economical systems so much that people will think it must have been the most cruel regime, economical system that has ever been appeared. Unfortunately I do not have enough information to be able to edit the article but maybe able to educate myself after I am done with my final exams. Take care --Aminz 03:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Aisha as Islamic feminist

Timothy, I put that bit there, because Islamic feminists DO look up to her. I think it was AE who removed the "Islamic feminist" and just put "some". I won't contest the removal right now, but I need to do some research in order to put it back with some references. Zora 06:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A Question

Did Sean admit that he has made a mistake in counting the number of reverts and did he appologize? --Aminz 07:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

He admitted he made a mistake when he wrote, "Blech," and blanked everyone's comments. No, he didn't apologize.Timothy Usher 07:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, then in case you wanted to make a report I will be behind you. AE and Sean must admit and appologize for the false 3RR accusation. --Aminz 07:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Aminz. As they've been given and squandered several chances to own up to and apologize for their missteps, a report is forthcoming. I'll keep you apprised.

Yes, I can not believe that while they know the truth that they falsely accused you for passing 3RR and yet they reject it. --Aminz 07:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You were too gentle on Butiaboy. I've rectified this.Timothy Usher 07:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Prophet

Hi, and thanks for the comment. I have seen this disscusion before, and then it was concludeded that prophet was just as NPOV as "shaman". Some belive he was a false prophet, sure, but that does'nt make him any less of a prophet. Peace. --Striver 08:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar

"How was the edit history altered?" Good question. I suspect it might have been as a result of someone removing something, but it could also have been a bug. "What inaccurate statments were made, to who, and where?" You and Pecher combined to present the claim to the DYK-active admins that the article met DYK criteria. &#0151; JEREMY 13:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Do you have a MSN, AOL or Yahoo id? --ManiF 06:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

E-mail sent --ManiF 07:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer my specific question and you failed to assume good faith, but that's OK, I got all I needed to know. Please use E-mail for any further discussion on the subject. --ManiF 09:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Multi-page confusion

I am sorry, I didn't get what you mean. Can you please explain more. thanks --Aminz 07:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the editor who originally added this was N-edit (who is a Non-Muslim) but later he himself added this Muslim response to the article. I don't know anything about this. --Aminz 07:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a source:

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:of5Yl3926TgJ:www.faithfr.dreamhosters.com/debates/montazeri3.htm+safiyah+montazeri+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Ali Sina asked some questions from Ayatollah Montazari and the above are his answers (to which Ali Sina himself has answered again).

--Aminz 07:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. A question, is this hadith from Bukhari in odd with Ibn Ishaq:

Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz: Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet . He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a nation then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.' He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said, 'Bring him along with her.' So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her."

Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet . (Sahih Bukhari 1.367)

Thanks --Aminz 07:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I am at office now and leaving back home! I'll get connected when I got home. Bye for now.--Aminz 07:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I am back! As to the Ali Sina website, I don't know anything more than you. It was better if Ali Sina has asked Montazari again to reply back to his answers. --Aminz 08:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please learn

Tim,

Regarding the note you left on the poor IP address (which isnt mine, but belongs to the University of Texas public terminals), please read the WP rules carefully. A sockpuppet is defined as an fraudulent account holder. An IP address by itself is not an "account". Sometimes, I may forget to log in, like everyone else, when editing. Sometimes, WP keeps throwing me out for some reason, so I have to keep logging back in. And sometimes, the anon user is not me, because I often use public terminals, and there are many other people at U of Texas that share the same ideas I do. Im sure you realize that UT is the 3rd largest university in population in America (over 185,000 students I presume).--Zereshk 21:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

And I do invite you to cease hostilities toward me. Keep your anti-Iranian bias in your edits, I have no issue with that. But please do not resort to ad hominems against me like Pecher repeatedly does. Because attacking me (or any other user for that matter) will cost you. 3 users have already been banned permanently for attacking me.--Zereshk 21:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk, those are all interesting points, but you should not be posting warning messages anonymously. If you have reason to believe that newly-created username a sockpuppet of Aucaman, just say so under your own username. If you run around posting "helpful" messages signed "-anon observer", and it's obviously you (to your credit, your comments here don't deny it) I am likely to sign those messages for you, as I did, so talk page users can keep track of who is saying what.

Threats of the sort you've posted above are unwarranted as I've not attacked you, and do not have the effect you'd probably like them to.

Always feel free to drop me a line.Timothy Usher 22:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've warned him about the above comment, thanks for bringing it to my attention. --InShaneee 21:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Tim, your very first correspondence directed at me was accusing me of anti-semitism. That's not a very good start. So you did in fact attack me. And your editorial pattern speaks for itself. Instead of engaging me about the article, you keep resorting to ad hominems, just like Pecher does. What do you have against me? What have I done to you?

Besides, I think your effort in trying to divert attention away from Aucaman's sockpuppet is useless. It is already now established that he was a sockpuppet.

As for me, someone left you a message on my talk page. I suppose you think this new anon is also me too. :) --Zereshk 21:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop playing games Tim. Your "anti-semitic" remark came as a direct response to my edits, and you know it'.

And as I said, the anon was not me. I would have actually signed in to expose the sockpuppet, because it would be to my benefit in exposing your position in backing up Moshe/Aucaman/Pecher.--Zereshk 22:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So beautiful

Timothy, have a look at Rani Mukerji. She is sooooo beautiful!!! --Aminz 04:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry accusation on Hitler talk page

A talk page for an article is for discussing that article. If you wish to accuse someone, leave a note on their talk page. I think your posting it on the Hitler talk page is a violation of the civility policy, attacking another editor in a forum not designed for such discussions. Please remove this offensive post, as it says nothing about the Hitler article, not a single word. Its about an editor, hence should go on that editor's talk page.-- Drogo Underburrow 23:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not an attack, nor is it incivil or off-topic, to note violations of WP:SOCK and WP:3RR in the editting of the article - indeed, the article is in its current form precisely because of these wilful violations.Timothy Usher 00:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It is completely off topic. The article talk page is for discussing changes to the article, its not a chat page, a forumn, or soapbox for you to publicize your personal attacks. If you think someone is violating Wiki policy, then report it in the appropriate places. The article talk page is not one of them, editors can do nothing about these matters. The only purpose served by posting it there is advertising your claim. That is not what article talk pages are for, to publicise alledged violations of rules. Your insistance on this matter makes me suspect you are simply interested in carrying on a personal war with the editor you are attacking. Drogo Underburrow 00:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Err. . . cough. . . what about Drogo's off-topic remarks about my Cathholicism on the Hitler talk page. How is that relevant if puppetry isn't? AnnH ♫ 00:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, there is no personal war. My only issue is the violation of policy - indeed, that's what alerted me to this page to begin with. By definition, it is not off-topic to comment on edits made to the article. Nor is it the case that editors "can do nothing about these matters": the editor in question can decide to play by the rules.Timothy Usher 00:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You said you were alerted to this? Pretell, who alerted you? I think that would be interesting, esp. given that a user check has already clear me.Giovanni33 03:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You did, when you posted this on Musical Linguist’s talk page[7] (which, incidentally, also contained inappropriate remarks about your fellow editors: “I know its backed by your best friend, fellow conservative Cathoilc, Str1977.” “I find it very disturbing that only the Catholic editors are pushing this POV...”).Timothy Usher 03:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, are flat out not telling the truth. As anyone can see by clicking on this like, the statment that you claim I made was NOT made by me! This is very underhanded of you. Should I quote someone else and then attribute their saying to you? Only if people look at the link they will see that your statment is false. Shameful! Also, Its not true that this message "notifies" you. It has nothting to do with you, and certainly its not a notice of any sort that you claimed it to me. Infact, you started off with the false puppet accusations long before this message even was written. So, in all, you have spoken here nothing but more falsehoods.Giovanni33 01:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33, there is no doubt in my mind that User:MikaM, like User:Kecik, User:Freethinker99, User:BelindaGong, User:FionaS, User:RTS, User:NPOV77, User:HK30 and User:Mercury2001, is you.Timothy Usher 03:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No doubt at all? It must be nice to be so sure of your beliefs. Its dangerous though as it leads to dogmatism. But, I do doubt your sincerity. But if you really believe this, then why don't you explain how you answer the logical question I posed to you elswhere? As I asked you before, if I were being tricky and somehow knew a way to spoof my IP address, then why did the other editor who I didn't want a connected to me to be known, get exposed by a user check--while all these other alleged puppets proved to show no connection to me---yet they were checked at the same time (Kecik and MikaM). Logically, I would not use two methods at the same time and if they were all my socks they would have all been discovered at the same time, along with my wife, BelindaGong, and my friend Freethinker. Also, if you look at the timing of when they edit they do not always come to my aid, nor do they edit at the same time that I need them--yet they also have edited at the same time that I have (proving that its not different locations that I just go back and forth to and from). So, Im just wondering what your explanation is, if indeed you are sincere with your beliefs. Do you think I just have a dozen friends that I call and use as my meatpuppets? That is the only logical possiblity I can think of. In anycase you are stating as a fact when it is only delusional and paranoid belief, and that is what I have a problem with (in addition to you doing this on article talk pages, which has the effect of being disruptive). Giovanni33 19:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33, to select just one point from a very large body of evidence: when both your Giovanni33 and BelindaGong usernames were blocked, you created a new username, User:Freethinker99, to revert Christianity article. When you were confronted on your talk page, you denied any connection to Freethinker99, but alas, were still logged on as Freethinker99[8] before you realized your error and corrected your signature[9]. Your "friend" explanation, like Belinda Gong being your wife, was offered post-facto, in essence moving your king to the very last available square. Your denial of connection demonstrates minimally that your word is unreliable. Surely mistrust based on such incidents cannot be characterized as "delusional and paranoid belief", as you've done.Timothy Usher 20:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice try but its a red-herring since the issues is not about the alleged socketpupetry of my wife and my friend, Freethinker, but of Mika, Kecik, and others--who were also user checked at the same time and revealed no connection. Also, although its not meaningful for this discussion your telling of the facts regarding Freethinker and Belinda are not accurate. The only truth is that I did not want it to be known they were connected to me in saome way out of their own wishes. But, I never had a socketpuppet. Your response fails to logically answer my question, which begs the question furher regarding the rationality of your purported beliefs.Giovanni33 22:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, you created a puppet username to evade your block, you lied when confronted, and you were caught. Then you made up a story to explain it. Still, I'm curious: which facts do you claim to be inaccurate?Timothy Usher 00:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. I never made up any other account. I've always had one and I still have one. I never lied, either. The misinterpreation of my comment when I said I had no connection any of the above editors was a reference to others, and did not include Freethinker who was added later, above, to the question I was answering. So, it make it look like Freethinker was included in the editors I denied a connection to. That is a mistake, it not lying, which must include intention. I used freethinker's account ONLY to respond to a comment on my own talk page when I was blocked only because I was at his house. The fact that I felt I had nothing to hide is proven by the fact that I wanted to use his computer (and IP address) to respond to questions on my talk page. If I created a socketpuppet, why would I use that account under my log-in name, thus connecting the two revealed by a usercheck? That makes no sense. The story I "made up" happens to be a true account that does fit and explains all the facts. You don't know that what I say is not true and have no way to conclude that except by assuming BAD FAITH. Hence you are in violation of the norms and guidelines of Wikipedia. Also, you have STIL not bothered to answer my simple questoins to you above--you just keep asking more questions but don't answer mine. Why is that?Giovanni33 07:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If you feel there is a violation then report it. The talk page of the Hitler article is for discussing changes to the article. If you want to send a message to the editor in question, then use his talk page. As for you, AnnH, I've stopped commenting about you on the page. I haven't mentioned you in a long time. I don't plan on singling you out ever again. If you were offended by my comments in the past, you have my sincerest apologies, and I ask you to exercise your Christian faith and forgive me and forget my trespasses against you. Drogo Underburrow 01:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamism

Sorry. I read your post on the talk page but then simply forgot to reply. And ,frankly, I don't think I'm going to participate in the fundamentalism or islamism articles. The climate there is just too much for my nerves. Azate 12:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar

The fact that you need to ask why the appearance in the new articles section of the main page of a five-month old piece presently the subject of serious edit-conflict "upset" me — and imply it must have had something to do with the content of the article — surprises and further discourages me, as does your insistence on retaining the misleading DYK banner. &#0151; JEREMY 14:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Three seconds

You owe me three seconds, the time I spent looking at your most recent edit to Talk:Battle of Khaybar. An edit summary such as really minor edit - don't bother checking, it's a waste of your time can have no effect but to induce me to look at your change, which really was minor and a waste of my time. If only I'd believed you. In any case, in lieu of turning back time, you may make the three seconds up to me by awarding me three barnstars and creating 20 sockpuppets to vote for me at a forthcoming RfA. Thanks in advance... Joe 20:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

My experiment worked!Timothy Usher 20:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Cease fire?

Look, its pointless for you and I to revert three times a day. Its a waste of time. How about both of us agreeing to not revert any more? We cancel each other out anyways. Let Str77 and Gio and the others continue to revert if they want, but how about the two of us mutually agreeing to stop? That will at least lesson the war by six reverts a day. Drogo Underburrow 09:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I have added the citations as they appear in the article to the mediation page, I believe this is what you asked for, please make sure.

KV 19:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Dont cut

Sorry what did I cut ? I am not able to understand what you wanted to say there. Why the source is not reliable when it give 25/26 references? --- Faisal 20:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No that is not sufficient. It should be written in the introduction. As there they make their case against Islam by presenting jizya as an oppression against non-Muslims. I will do that change once again tomorrow with more references. I hope you will support me. --- Faisal 21:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Also what is meant from Dhimmis were not allowed to testify in cases involving a Muslim. Dhimmi men were prohibited from marrying Muslim women. It should be Muslim women are not allowed to marry any non-Muslim (Dhimmi or not Dhimmi).

Why there is any oppression. Do you know that Abu Bakar fight with a group that refuses to pay the Zikat. So the rule is equal to all. I find no oppression there (anyone who refuse tax will deal with a fight Muslim/non-Muslim) Is that not same in USA. If I do not pay my tax they USA Govt. fight with me. is that oppression? --- Faisal 21:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The family goes with the name of male not from female. Hence if a female marry with a non-muslim male then its children will be non-muslim. so the rule is okay. Male are allowed to Marry only with People-of-Book women, with some other restrictions. --- Faisal 22:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You are good in finding Quran verses. Can you find the verse that says "Allah does not forbid you regarding those who have not killed you, because of your deen. That you be good with them and be just with them. For Allah love that just" . I will be thankful with your help. I need to include that too in Dhimmi article. I need to sleep now its 3:00 am. bye.

It is if you're say, Egyptian, and the United States were to attack Egypt until all Egyptians pay a tax to the United States.

That what exactly USA do. Any state that are against them goes under attack. How many states you know currently stand and speak against them. They also collect tax from each and every country. Read [10] Tell me when that is not happened in history? --- Faisal 22:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Christianity

Absolutely. —Aiden 22:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Monotheism and Christianity

I'll watch this page and continue the discussion here. What I think would be good is to say that it is generally regarded as monotheism, then have a small Monotheism section in beliefs, about the size of the other sections, then when we get enough information on it, make a small article on the discussion that can be linked.

KV 23:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made an edit, that I am not sure will stay. You can find it in the history at least. I drew a parallel to Christian belief from Hinduism to make an interesting point. Take a look.

KV 16:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Tim, give me an honest answer of where my suggestion falls short, in the wording I have offered in that edit. I'm confused on how you wanted me to expand on the idea and now you seem opposed to it.

KV 03:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Abrahamic religion phrase

Either one is fine so long as we indicate it is considered an Abrahamic religion. Many people do not consider it as such. —Aiden 01:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't panic

Hi, I'm working on it right now. Just give me three minutes! Cheers. AnnH ♫ 19:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I had just reported it :/

KV 19:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Talk_Page_with_29_archives_deleted

KV 19:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Relax. It's done! :-) AnnH ♫ 19:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, AnnH, and KV. That was truly horrible of me, and hopefully shall never be repeated.Timothy Usher 19:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I love you man

Ha! You're a genius. Thanks for that! Netscott 07:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As novel and cool an idea those links were, they'd never fly. I've swapped them out. Thanks again! Netscott 08:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Joturner

Thought you might be interested to have a look at [11]. --Aminz 08:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree Joturner is young, but I think Cyde is even younger. As you said there are good things about Joturner but there are also some problems. I personally had a bad conflict with him. I have decided not to talk with him anymore. But if I want to vote for his adminship, I go for "support" (because of the good side). I agree with your second point. I will post another complain on Sean's talk page soon. --Aminz 08:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Joturner is younger than Cyde ;). Note to Timothy Usher: I've unprotected your talk page as it's been 16 days, I don't think that tere's a need to leave talk pages protected that long. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:59 UTC (2006-05-20)

I have responded to your questions. joturner 10:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Parties.27_agreement_to_mediate_3

warning, again

Please stop making personal attacks on other editors, and abide by the rules of civility. Also, please assume good faith. Thanks.Kecik 12:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

On that note - it seems it is you who keeps moving other peoples comments. Agathoclea 13:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Agathoclea, I moved them back where they were before G33 moved them.Timothy Usher 17:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It might appear to be some moving, but it was an insertion. Moving means deleting it in one spot and pasting it elsewhere, which is what you did. Agathoclea 19:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As such insertions have the effect of moving other editor's comments downward, I'm not sure what practical disinction you mean to draw. If the comment is on a different tab, that's one thing, but a series of comments on the same tab should appear in the order which they were posted.Timothy Usher 19:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually not only do you move my comments around, in places they don't belong (so they its impossible to see who my response is a response to), but you also have changed the text of what I wrote. Ofcourse, I saw what you did and restored it.Giovanni33 23:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I assure you, if I did so it was entirely inadvertant. My understanding is that:

Post A

Post B in responds to A

Post D responds to B

Post C responds to A

So if you wish to respond to A, and your comment is post C, you should not move post B downward. However, if you wish to respond to post B rather than post C, post D is indented to show this. Isn't this orthodoxy?Timothy Usher 23:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well that is not what you did in my case. You moved it to somewhere it did not correspond to, and the text was changed from what I posted. But, unlike you, I will assume good faith.Giovanni33 23:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)