Misplaced Pages

Templates S-ecc and S-off

Hello! Can you tell me, when these two templates will be released for edit again? Regards, Louis88 15:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello? - Louis88 17:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have unprotected {{s-ecc}} because it has been superseded by another template. {{s-off}} was indefinitely protected in December 2006 (as you probably saw by the page history). That was during a time when vandals would repeatedly tamper with templates used on hundreds of pages ({{s-off}} is used on a few thousand pages). I personally feel the threat of that type of vandalism is not really present at this time, but there probably is no need to remove the protection since the template is rarely edited. You are free to make an unprotection request at WP:RPP, however. Sorry for the late response; I (wrongly) assumed that these were two of the templates that I protect daily (those expire after twenty-four hours). -- tariqabjotu 17:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sarathambal

Hi Tariqabjotu,

Did you protect this article? the protection template was removed by DumbBOT ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 09:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As the edit history notes, the protection was set to expire 20:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC). -- tariqabjotu 16:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I missed to note that. thanks for watching over that article ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 18:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Look what is happening to the article now based on the RS sources] talk page discussion, I removed Tamilnation and left Tamilnet as a source but an editor who refuses to talk about it keeps deletinf sources friom it . He must have reverted it more than 8 times by now. Thanks Taprobanus 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Peres on ITN

Is Shimon Peres really appropriate for ITN? Someone mentioned on Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors that it was a symbolic position, which prompted me to suggest removal. Discussion there.--Chaser - T 20:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is. I am (and was at the time of the addition) aware of the greater importance of the Israeli Prime Minister over the Israeli President. Nevertheless, the President still serves as the country's head of state and he does have a few important powers and roles. -- tariqabjotu 20:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference

Just FYI, User:Hajji Piruz is now using your name as a reference to bring further accusations against myself with or without a basis. Thanks. Atabek 06:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

ok

Hello. I know I am not 100% innocent. How much can a guy take before he snaps? I'm sure there are instances where I have gotten frustrated and said somethings, I acknowledge, and am looking forward to your statements. I am confident in the evidence I have compiled, and I have made a ton of good contributions to Misplaced Pages (I am an active member of 3 Wikiprojects, I have created 40+ articles, 3 categories, two templates, made good contributions to several more). I am confident that if I present my case well, post all of my evidence, the administrators will see that it was Atabek who has gotten me to do the things I did, because he kept pushing me and pushing me. This goes back months Tariq, its not a new developement. I've been constantly pushed, I really cant take it anymore. If we go to arbcom, then we'll settle it there, even if the admins decide to ban us both (but again, I am confident in the evidence I have). I will post all the evidence regarding Atabek's disruptive behavior, against me and other users, to show that its not only me that he does this to and that its his general behavior. I appreciate your concern, but I really cant take it anymore. If we're both banned, the so be it, but I'm confident that the admins will see that what I do on Misplaced Pages in terms of behavior makes me look like an angel compared to what Atabek does, but I could be wrong. Thanks again. Looking forward to our next chat.Hajji Piruz 15:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the Arbcom request: Hajji Piruz 16:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

24h block of Sideshow Bob?

Excuse me for objecting administrator, but I think you have made a mistake. User:Sideshow Bob did not violate the 3RR rule. --PaxEquilibrium 21:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you (and him) are correct. I have unblocked him. -- tariqabjotu 21:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment against italians

I wonder why I have been blocked after facing a continuous harrassment by two nationalistic montenegrins. Please, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Venetian_Albania&diff=next&oldid=139034735. As you can see, I corrected adding a Paulucci reference to the article (and cancelling a phrase related to the word "veneta" that was repeated), with my request that only the administrators should add and/or remove tags. I was writing an article about the venetian dominions in coastal Montenegro (and the romance populations who lived and still live there) translating it initially from the italian wikipedia, when on june 16 a montenegrin nationalist named Paxequilibrium arbitrarily and without explications placed a tag on it. Since then it has been a nightmare because of him and his friends against my writings. They placed tags and cancellations without ever writing anything on the article. I have requested the intervention of an impartial administrator in order to deal with their fascist nationalism and harrassment against a minority (the venetian speaking people of the Bay of Kotor/Cattaro) who has "disappeared" in the last two centuries in a way that reminds the ethnic cleansing. They (the nationalist montenegrins) want to erase even the memory of these venetian speaking people! Allow me to give you my last post in the "discussion" of the article, in order to explain better the harrassment:

.."..I have contacted the headquarters of Wikimedia/Wikpedia in Florida. I am the one who is writing something on the article:all the problems are being created by the continuous cancellations of Paxequilibrium and others. By the way: until now NOTHING has been written by these nationalists in the article. They only "tag and cancel" in perfect "communist Tito-style". Initially Paxequilibrium even wrote that "I don't think that this subject deserves an independent article", but now he accepts that the article can exist as in the italian and german wikipedias......He even wrote that I was "blatantly assuming all Roman Catholic Christians automatically as Italians", while I never wrote about the catholicism in my article. And he, with Sideshow Bob, deny all the data from books that I have referred in the "voice". Here it is a list: Will Durant in his book The Renaissance (..The dominions of Venice in the Adriatic sea are even related to the relationship of this italian city with the romance speaking populations in Dalmatia..) Matteo Bartoli in his book Le parlate italiane della Venezia Giulia e della Dalmazia.(...These villages looked to Venice even for protection and around them the Venetians started to create their dominions in Dalmatia...) Luigi Paulucci in his book "Le Bocche di Cattaro nel 1810" (..the population of the Albania veneta, during the centuries of the Republic of Venice, was mainly venetian speaking (aproximately 66%) in the urban areas (Cattaro, Perasto, Budua, ecc..) around the "Bocche di Cattaro" (Bay of Kotor).But in the inland areas more than half of the population was serbocroatian speaking, after the first years of the eighteenth century....) Diego De Castro in his book Dalmazia, popolazione e composizione etnica. Cenno storico sul rapporto etnico tra Italiani e Slavi nella Dalmazia. (...in the austrian census of 1910, the italians were reduced to only 13.6% in Cattaro..) The linguist Matteo Bartoli in "Le parlate italiane della Venezia Giulia e della Dalmazia". (...The "disappearance" of the italian speaking populations in Dalmatia was nearly complete after WWII. The linguist Matteo Bartoli calculated that the italians were 33% of the Dalmatian population during the napoleonic wars, while actually there are only 300 italians in the croatian dalmatia and 500 italians in coastal Montenegro....) Scaglioni Marzio in "La presenza italiana in Dalmazia 1866-1943" (...During the nineteenth century, according to the historian Scaglioni Marzio, the wars of independence of Italy from the Austro-Hungarian empire created a situation of harrassment against the italian (or venetian speaking) communities in the austrian southern dalmatia. The result was that in 1880 there were in Cattaro, according to the austrian census, only 930 ethnic italians (or only 32% of a total population of 2910 people)....) Finally, I want to repeat "..I DON'T SEE ANY DATA & REFERENCE AGAINST THE VOICE. There are some books (bibliography) that deny the "Albania veneta"? There are academic sources against what I wrote? Brunodam.." I am afraid I am in the middle of the usual balkan nationalistic wars that damage wikipedia. That is why I request the intervention of an impartial admministrator (and I hope he is not going to be a "friend" of Paxequilibrium). Anyway, whatever he decides will be good to me: the wikipedia headquarters (Jimbo and others) have been notified. --Brunodam 19:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)....." With my best regards. Professor Bruno D'Ambrosio.--4.231.207.126 23:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Advice on Ethnic minorities in Iran

I would appreciate your opinion on a clash of editorial styles on Ethnic minorities in Iran. I have tried to condense the article by paraphrasing quotes and including more descriptive text, while maintaining most of the original points (those I deleted were misquotations). However, one user claims I am being disruptive for allegedly deleting too much of the article. Could you compare the different versions and give an opinion: . There are also POV problems which I am attempting to address on the talk page. I am hoping these can be dealt with through dialogue.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to get too involved here, but I believe the original version has far too many {{cquote}} items. There are times when a large number of quotes is useful and necessary (see Allegations of Israeli apartheid), but the article here is not about "allegations" or controversy or radically different opinions that need to be attributed to particular individuals and organizations. Pivotal quotes can be relegated to {{cquote}} items, but most important quotes should be in the text. Some of the quotes should be eliminated altogether. I'm unsure which quotes fall into each category. -- tariqabjotu 02:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears no-one wants to discuss this matter on the talk page and that I am subject to a de facto block by a gang of editors. I am sick of this. It is the same on every Iran-related article. Any criticism of the Iranian regime by human rights and opposition groups is suppressed in favour of Iran as a country of communal harmony. But the issue I am trying to deal with is not even a matter of POV. I am just trying to make the article more concise and making the points in the article clearer instead of the current situation of lengthy quotations - some of which are blatant misquotations if you click on the links and read the articles.

It is clear that a gang of editors have taken ownership of all Iran-related articles and are unwilling to have anyone step on their territory and edit their articles. 3RR stacking is used while there is a blank refusal to engage in any serious discussion. In the past I have tried to fight it and have been blocked on multiple occasions. Now I am trying my best to remain within the rules of Misplaced Pages and allow myself only one revert, but I am still sidelined. What do I do? I can't open RFCs for every article I am faced with these de facto blocks as this is just time-consuming and pointless. I know that other editors are also frustrated by this situation on other articles. So what is the solution here?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am being reverted again on this article , despite adding in sourced information (including UN General Assembly and European Parliament resolutions). It is clear that some users don't want to engage in discussion on this and are blind reverting anything and everything I add. I again appeal to you to advise me on how I deal with this de facto block on my editing of Iran-related articles. I am not asking for you to block anyone. I just want to know how I can move beyond this block on me adding sourced, verifiable and relevant material to articles.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You really should stop canvassing Tariq, or other Arab admins who you think are sympathetic toward the Arab POV. We are not going to quote Rodney Moore, the spokesperson of Canadian government or other foreign governments on an article about Iran, just as we won't quote the spokesperson of Iranian government on an article about USA or Canada, even if they're sourced, and verifiable. Abbass William Sami works for RFEL. (US radio freedom..which is a biased US government-affiliated organization) UN statement is fine, as long it's not a repetition and redundant, and we already have a similar statement in that section from Amnesty International. Nonetheless, I added back the UN statmanet , but we shouldn't be quoting governments or governmental organizations that have political disputes with Iran. AlexanderPar 19:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

For a start, you have stripped down my contributions to virtually nothing. Secondly, given that these sections are related to allegations of foreign involvement in Iran, it makes sense to give the reactions of foreign governments to these allegations - no Misplaced Pages policy will back you up on this. Thirdly, you are not using the talk page to discuss this editorial dispute, you are doing it here. I have asked for your comments on the talk page. Please respond.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, I have to agree that it looks like you are contacting me because you think I'm sympathetic toward one position. My advice for resolving this dispute is similar to the advice I would give to others – follow the processes at WP:DR. -- tariqabjotu 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not canvassing, I am asking for advice - note that I said I wasn't asking for a block. I approached you because you are an admin who has been involved in mediation on Iran-related articles in the past. It is disappointing to see you assume bad faith. Moreover, I am not asking you to uphold a POV, I am asking you how I deal with a de facto block by a group of editors.

Alex: Please stop following me from article to article and reverting my edits and/or putting up fact tags on everything I write. Also, Tariqabjotu is not an Arab and even if he was it is irrelevant. Lastly, please discuss your reversions or partial reversions on the talk page rather than stalking me here.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The dispute resolution process advises that one should seek third party opinion on the matter. So, I contacted you. You have accused me of seeking sympathetic support when in fact I asked for advice. Consequently, this aspect of dispute resolution is not working due to the assumption of bad faith on your part. Now I guess I will have to submit an RfC, which will go to mediation and then undermined by the same users that undermined the Shatt al-Arab mediation attempt.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The assumption of bad faith on my part? You just said the issue will eventually go to mediation only to be "undermined by the same users that undermined the Shatt al-Arab mediation attempt". You said "any criticism of the Iranian regime by human rights and opposition groups is suppressed in favour of Iran as a country of communal harmony" and also alleged that "it is clear that a gang of editors have taken ownership of all Iran-related articles and are unwilling to have anyone step on their territory and edit their articles". I, on the other hand, only said it looked like you were contacting me for that reason. If you weren't, that's fine. But it still looks that way because you've given a one-sided (and rather unspecific) account of the events at the article, as evidenced by the preceding quotes. As for your problems with the dispute resolution process... there's really nothing else I can suggest. My opinion on the talk page is worth no less, no more than yours and the other involved editors. Additionally, my protocol for responding to these types of requests is to avoid taking a stance. All that leads to is one side saying I'm choosing sides and ganging up against them. It really distracts from the main issue, and so I'll only get involved if I want to "choose a side" (that's not the case here). Anyway, other than that, all I can really do is block disruptive editors or protect the article. There's no reason for either at this point. Sorry. -- tariqabjotu 05:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that AlexanderPar removed any criticism of the Iranian government by the UN, the EU, governments and other verifiable sources from this article is proof of my earlier assertion that such information is suppressed by a group of POV-pushers. My position is further vindicated by the fact that this user was blocked for edit warring - not as a result of a formal complaint by me. Other admins looking at this objectively and without reading my "one-sided account of the events" apparently came to the conclusion that edit warring is a problem on this article.

For the record, I didn't ask for your intervention but your advice on how I deal with this situation of edit warring and 3RR stacking by these editors without having to go through the arduous process of RfC, mediation, ArbCom, etc, for edits that use verifiable sources. But it seems that I will have to do this for every single edit I make as it is clear to me that some users are attempting to prevent me from editing.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable sources that are neither neutral nor appropriate. I can find "verifiable sources" that the Iranian government makes a lot of accusations against USA's treatment of African-Americans, but that doesn't give me a green light to include that information in USA-related articles. United Nations is more appropriate and I did not "suppress" it, but US Congressional research center, European Parliament, or Canadian government are political entities with their own agendas. Governments and political parties have their own agendas, they're not reliable sources. If governments were verifiable and reliable sources, then Iraq would have had WMDs.AlexanderPar 07:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't this being discussed by you on the article's talk page? I said I would wait until your block for edit warring expired so you could state your case there, but you have not done so and had preferred this user's talk page, which means other users are unaware of your justifications for removing my edits. Moreover, I get an off-Wiki email from you saying that you'd include me in an ArbCom case on Azerbaijan and Armenia (countries I have no interest in let alone contributed any edits to) unless I "settle the issues on that article in a balanced, fair, and reasonable manner", which is odd as I have repeatedly sought your comments on the talk page and you are the one who got blocked for edit warring. I have limited myself to one revert and am going through the WP:BRD cycle - I made a bold edit, this was reverted and I am seeking discussion. Threatening to include me in an ArbCom case is a way to close down this editing cycle and make me submit to your reversions of my edits.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Other people have already addressed you on the talk page, I'll join the discussions later on. I got blocked not just for that article, but also for edit warring with a throw-away sock, which has since been identified and indefinitely blocked. If the sole reason for my block was that article, then you'd have been blocked as well, and considering your disruptive history (racism, sock-puppetry, and edit-waring), your block would have been much longer than 24hr. Being "bold" is very different from being provocative, I invited you to be balanced, fair, and reasonable and seek consensus for your edits, instead of POV-pushing, since that article is part of an ongoing ArbCom, and you may automatically become a party to the case.AlexanderPar 14:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

user:AlexanderPar perfectly knows what he is doing - blatant edit warring on several pages and evade usually discussions. Let's check pages he edited and relevant talkpages. He is removing neutral and reliable sources without any excuse and reasonable explanation. Don't threaten other people with Arbcom. You - the one - who is in Arbcom case and will be considered for your edit warring, POV pushing and battle along ethnic lines.--Dacy69 14:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Cease stalking me Dacy69. I am not going to change my editing habits, because you - a known POV pusher on ArbCom probation - don't like my neutral approach to your blatant soapboxing (spamming numerous articles with seletive POV material from governmental/political sources) and POV-pushing to turn Misplaced Pages into a battleground. All my edits have been accompanied with a reasonable rational, either in the edit summery or on the talk page. AlexanderPar 15:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I challenge you to find any example of me being racist. It is an outright lie. In fact, I have had to put up with accusations of being Ba'athist, Sunni extremist, an imposter, a terrorist and even a "lizard eater" (a common term of racial abuse against Arabs) on many occasions (although not by you). Moreover, I have not reverted any deletion of my edits more than once on that article, so I cannot be accused of edit warring. If you genuinely think I am a party to an ArbCom case on Armenia and Azerbaijan (articles I have never even touched), then state it on the RfA. Don't use it as a threat.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 15:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Use your own talk pages or the talk page of the article in question. -- tariqabjotu 15:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Kish Church

Dear Admin,

The edit warring is a result of sockpuppetry of one user under these names:

User: Aramgutan, Zhirtibay, DrAlban, Qarapapaq, Otvetnyiudar.

There was initially another dispute on this article. I received no answer from the talk page by editors . I waited 2 days got no response to my talk page comments, so I modified to my version. It is now up to them to explain why it should be changed to their version. After my edit it took only minutes to revert from my version, followed by sock puppetry from above accounts the next day. I hope you can do something, this vandalism is quite frustrating. Hetoum I 00:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well said

I just have to say, reading over your Armenia-Azerbaijan arbcom statement, that you have explained the cause of many of Misplaced Pages's conflicts very well. The statement almost deserves being attached to {{controversial}}, just so more people could see it and realize how silly, overblown - and even preventable - some of these conflicts are. Again, very well said. Happy editing, Picaroon (Talk) 23:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot; I'm glad it made an impact on you. I can only hope it makes a similar impact on the involved parties. -- tariqabjotu 23:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah

Well, I thought that the fifth revert was actually obvious but perhaps not so obvious to a person who isn't used to revert maximisation, but I thought it was pretty obvious. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Another point: the fourth and fifth reverts in the report are consecutive, so they technically should count as one. -- tariqabjotu 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks for pointing that out. I changed it to 24. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. And now that I look at the history again, four reverts are obvious. I'm not sure how I missed that. -- tariqabjotu 04:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Helping with the Islam article

Thank you for raising the protection level on the Islam article, it was getting out of hand. User:Matt57 and User:Arrow740 repeatedly reverted attempts to remove text Arrow740 inserted without discussing or gaining a consensus first, so it may take time to sort this out. Actually, would you be able to sort of keep watch over the talk page? It might help to have someone a bit "removed" from the dispute, so to speak. MezzoMezzo 18:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I did not first insert material of that kind, and four editors have supported it. Arrow740 23:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I can keep an eye on it, but it seems like quite a few people are already watching the events on the talk page. -- tariqabjotu 22:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

it would be helpful if you could help mediate the current content dispute so that it can reach an amicable solution swiftly. ITAQALLAH 22:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Tariq, when is page protection set to expire? it appears that we have reached a compromise with regard to the content dispute that gave rise to the page protection. ITAQALLAH 16:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes we have. Arrow740 23:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

POV forking on template:History of Manchuria

Wiki pokemon is attempting to circumvent the majority consensus on template:History of Manchuria by replacing it with a POV fork he created, template:History of Northeast China. I have nominated this template for Template for Deletion and informed most editors involved in the dispute, but another editor has suggested bringing this issue to you. Can you please look into this matter should you find the time? Thank you. Cydevil38 20:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why someone recommended that you contact me, although I remember I might have fielded a request related to this template a couple months ago. The nomination for deletion (and subsequent contacting of involved editors) seemed like the right thing to do. Anyway, I've commented on the TfD, although I'm really not involved with the template. -- tariqabjotu 22:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:Hannibal Lector

Sure, go ahead. (I've also been using those templates more frequently now. :) ) « ANIMUM » 22:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying to unblock him ( a 3rr is a 3rr and he's guilty of that), but user:CyberGhostface did back right off when I warned him. HalfShadow 22:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think blocking Cyber is best now. He was already given a warning, and upon that ceased to even edit the article in the time that CJK proceded to revert with another editor and it was finally protected. I don'tk now, it just comes off like we slapped his wrists once, and then decided he needed the belt instead.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked him. At issue here is (from WP:3RR) In the cases where multiple editors violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally. However, CJK has been disruptive in other ways (and violated 3RR on another article), so this is not really unbalanced. In fact, since CJK got a twenty-four hour block as well, the unblock here probably makes things more fair. -- tariqabjotu 01:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to re-evalutate the situation, as I'm sure CyberGhostface is as well. I'll try and let him know about WP:1RR. 01:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, his block log does have a fair history of 3RR locks, so perhaps suggesting that he be somewhat more careful...? I can't comment on any of the other times, but he stopped right after I warned him and he didn't have to(), so I don't think he's doing it entirely on purpose. HalfShadow 01:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking me. In the future if I have a problem I'll bring attention to other editors.--CyberGhostface 02:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad

Thanks for fixing the template for me - I've never protected a page before. Cheers, WilyD 04:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If you weren't aware already (I have a feeling you just forgot to add the template, so perhaps you are), a table of protection templates is located at Template:Protection templates. -- tariqabjotu 18:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment against italians 2

Allow me to write a second message. I still wonder why I was blocked 24 hours last 06/18/07: I was writing an article about the venetian dominions in coastal Montenegro (and the romance populations who lived and still live there) translating it initially from the italian wikipedia, when on june 16 a montenegrin nationalist named Paxequilibrium (who seems to have other wilipedia names: Holyromanempire, CrnaGora, etc...) and without explications placed a tag on it. Since then it has been a nightmare because of him and his friends against my writings. They placed tags and cancellations without ever writing anything on the article. I have requested the intervention of an impartial administrator in order to deal with their fascist nationalism and harrassment against a minority (the venetian speaking people of the Bay of Kotor/Cattaro) who has "disappeared" in the last two centuries in a way that reminds the ethnic cleansing. But they behaved quickly using the "tactic" of 1) making me fall in the 3RR rule and then 2) use the hacker method of stealing my IP and create a "Dalmata" sockpuppet. You probably know that an "emerging gang of wrongdoers called “bot-herders” hijack other people's computers, stitch them together in a “botnet” and use them to send spam, steal data or disrupt the internet" Please, see article on http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9375697

What do I have to do now? I don't want to reverse anything in the article "Albania veneta"....or can I? It is clear that a "gang of editors" have taken ownership of the articles on the Dalmatian coast and are unwilling to have anyone step on their territory and edit their articles. 3RR stacking is used while there is a blank refusal to engage in any serious discussion. In the past I have tried to fight it and have been blocked. Now I am trying my best to remain within the rules of Misplaced Pages (It seems the problem is happening a lot of times in wikipedia....). Another italian (named Giovanni Giove) is suffering the same harrassment by this group of nationalistic serbocroatian. Sincerely --Brunodam 03:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. If you haven't already, you may want to start with a request for comment. Note, however, that your parts of your description – "montenegrin nationalist", "fascist nationalism", and suggestions that they stole your IP (seriously now... that's highly improbable... it was you, wasn't it?) – are baseless personal attacks. Follow the dispute resolution processes and stay away from attacking editors. If you proceed to attack other edits, you will be blocked. You are not the first person to come to my talk page and say that what you're doing is right and so your edit-warring is justified. That is just not the case; re-read WP:3RR if you have to. -- tariqabjotu 03:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I understand now everything. Anyway, I want to pinpoint that the problem of "stolen IP" has already happened in the italian and spanish wikipedia. And I believe "seriously" that it is going to happen again more and more even in the english wikipedia, because there are plenty of hackers around....or is it "highly improbable" even the existence of so many hackers? Last but not least, I want to remind you that Paxequilibrium (and his friends) has obtained all he wanted: he has attacked and cancelled my writings (that were academically well documented), he has done it without any references or data (as evidence of his points of view), he has obtained that I got a "24 hour block" with his 3RR stacking.....and finally he goes away without any problems (even if he seems to be the sockpuppet CrnaGora*), while I "will be blocked" if I write something contrary to his writings/cancellations on the article (about the "ethnic disappearance" of the venetian speaking populations in coastal Montenegro). Now I understand even why Paxequilibrium wrote "I have invited a third party neutral administrator"............

P.S.: * for example, in the "discussion section" CrnaGora writes that "If you google "Albania veneta", there is about 86,000 results, a few I saw did involve Montenegro (Boka Kotorska) to be part of Albania veneta. So, if whatever ......--CrnaGora 22:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)". And after two days Paxequilibrium writes "...I didn't check all 86,000 (only some of them), but they ...--PaxEquilibrium 13:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)" .

--Brunodam 15:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

URU URU salaam KI

Following up on a discussion on the ANE 2 discussion list, Yitzhak Sapir at Hebrew Bible and ANE History Lists Commentary blog notes the way the place name is written in the Akkadian of Amarna tablet EA 287.

He even has a picture from The Encyclopedia of El Amarna Research Tool website. He correctly notes that the place name is written with the "City" determinative URU before urusalem. At least this is true in five of the seven instantiations of the place name in the Amarna tablets.

EA 287:25: URUú-ru-sa-lim (I believe this is the example illustrated in Yitzhak's post)

EA 287:46: URUú-ru-sa-limKI

EA 287:61: ú-ru-sa-limKI

EA 287:63: URUú-ru-sa-limKI

EA 289:14: URUú-ru-sa-limKI

EA 289:29: URUú-ru-sa-limKI

EA 290:15: ú-ru-sa-limKI

The above quote suggests that the place determinative is for uru-sa-lim. More likely its a reduplication URU URU ___ KI meaning "peace" det. the place of places.

That suggests that it was at one time the northern border of the dijadi which was moved north in the Time of Thutmosis I to the city of Kadesh in the mountains. (This was originally a Phoenician city (Gades - Cadiz, Carthage, Kodesh) which was a city of refuge on the border of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel before any of those existed as countries.

Like Kadesh Jerusalem may have had the same function as a refuge city and also as a place where people would feel safe to meet for purposes of trade. In the 18th Dynasty the border between retnu (the watershed of the Orantes) and the dijadi (the watershed of the Jordan) was at the common headwaters of the Orantes, Litani and Jordan whose mountain watersheds people still fight over today.

The Akkadian name should go first since thats the name of the place in its earliest history, even after it becomes part of an Egyptian province in the 18th and 19th Dynasty as referenced in the Amarna letters.Rktect 10:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You cite a blog post, which holds very little weight in supporting a statement. I'm not even sure the post backs up what you're saying. Ultimately, Akkadian is already addressed in the article, with a better source. Also, please remember to post comments at the bottom of talk pages, not the middle, and with second-level headers (==), not first-level headers (=). -- tariqabjotu 14:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The primary source is not the blog post, its ANE 2 discussion list, a monitored academic list server. If you aren't familiar with the server, the names, or the issue there is little left to say.Rktect 01:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Much of what you quoted appears to be an analysis from the poster on the blog. That's original research. This segment – The above quote suggests that the place determinative is for uru-sa-lim. More likely its a reduplication URU URU ___ KI meaning "peace" det. the place of places. – does not even make sense. "More likely its a reduplication URU URU ___ KI..."? How does one come to that conclusion? -- tariqabjotu 01:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You consider the comments of Yitzhak Sapir at Hebrew Bible and ANE History Lists original research?

URU KI

Reduplication]Rktect 02:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

points of etymological dispute

Further information: Names of Jerusalem Although the precise origin of the name remains uncertain,

1. Its earliest known name was Akkadian in the form URU Uru ša-lim KI which uses the Sumerian determinative for place. It is so refered to in the Amarna letters seven times as the place of peace. Mistaking a grammatic marker for some sort of fantasy about Melchizedek, monotheism and a city at Jerusalim in the middle bronze age is not good.

2. In the semitic roots of Akkadian, Hebrew and Arabic there are no vowels. The name ša-lim (peace or wisdom) (š read sh) and its cognates such as Solomon or shalom are often written with vowels so as to make them easier to read.

3. Jerusalem began as a fortified well. In the time of Genesis, the Egyptian 18th Dynasty URU Uru ša-lim KI was garrisoned by the Egyptians as part of what they called the djadi or watershed of the Jordan river.

4. Much later, after the first temple was built by Solomon it came to be called Hebrew Yerushalayim (Yeru = URU - shalayim) which may be understood as "Place of Peace" — a portmanteau of yerusha (place) and shalom (peace), by its jewish inhabitants, a name which is cognate with the name "Solomon", the king who built its first temple.

5. Alternatively, the second part of the portmanteau may instead be Salem (Shalem literally "whole" or "in harmony"), a city name used prior to Jerusalem and seen in the first book of the Torah, Genesis. In the time of Genesis of course, URU uru ša-lim KI was still a part of the Egyptian djadi, and Melchizedek would have been the garrison commander of what was then a fortified well.

6. The Amarna letters refer to the city seven times using the Akkadian with a Sumerian determinative of the form URU KI meaning place URU Uru-ša-lim KI. Uru-ša-lim is a cognate of the Hebrew Ir Shalem (city of Salem) with the redupicated URU uru___Ki indicating its a special place, a place of peace or truce where trading can be engaged in safely.

7. In the Egyptian 18th Dynasty it was one of several places where the twelve materials necessary for mummifying the dead were collected including bitumen, naptha, frankincense, myhr, linen, juniper oil, sea salt, spices and the manufactured amulets of Osirus, Isis, Annubis and Horus.

8. The semitic roots ša-lim used in the name Shalim, as a benificent deity known from Ugaritic myths as personifying dusk would indicate the time of peace and rest after a hard day that ended at dusk. The ending -ayim or -im has the appearance of the semitic dual,

9. Semitic Roots ENTRY: clm. DEFINITION: Arabic root, to know. ulema, from Arabic culam, plural of clim, wise, learned, active participle of calima, to know. leading some scholars to argue that Jerusalem represents two facets of the city, such as the dual nature of knowledge as discussed in the Egyptian Tale .

A Midrashic interpretation comes from Genesis Rabba, which explains that Abraham came to the city that was then called Shalem after rescuing Lot. Upon arrival, he asked the king and high priest Melchizedek to bless him, and Melchizedek did so in the name of God (indicating that he, like Abraham, was a monotheist).

10. The claim of a similar contract between Melchizedek the Egyptian garrison commander and Abraham resulting in the renaming of Melchizedek's well is unsubstantiaded. The term Yeru (URU) placed in front of the name šalem,Yeru-šalem, is a grammatical marker or determinative giving the meanin the place of peace, alternatively "The place of šalem," or "the establishment of a place of šalem." with the understanding that šalim or Uru-ša-lim means the place of peace.

11 The manner of binding contracts with blessings and curses in the book of Genesis, the first book of Pentetuech was first discussed by the well known archaeologist .

12 The dates of Dynasties 11 to 20 are from Kitchen, "The Basics of Egyptian Chronology in Relation to the Bronze Age", in Astrom (ed) High, Middle or Low (Gothengurg, 1987), taking his low chronology. Ken Kitchen uses textual artifacts such as the form and sequence of the blessings and curses used to bind contracts, the price of slaves as mentioned in everything from cuneiform texts to the Bible in context with the political and cultural interactions of the Ancient Near East to get a range or spread of about a century plus or minus for his chronologies. The dates of Dynasties 21 to 26 are from Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1973, Warminster).

13. Since then, given the time scale, archaeologists and linguists have frequently discussed the agreements of Abram with the four gods who interact with Abram in the process leading up to his changing his name to Abraham in an historical context. The gods providing historical context to the story are El shaddai, the lord of the land, (thought by some to be šamsi adad of Mari), Yahwah, the lord of the air, el Roi, the power of the water in the well that saves Hagar, and Moloch, the power that asks for the passing through the fire of Abrahams first son.

14. As scholars begin to strip religious myth from historical context the synthesis shows that there is good corespondence between archaeology, history and the biblical traditions of this etymology as a place of peace.

15. Essentially what you have placed into the article is demonstrably false and bears no relation to archaeology or history. If wikipedia begins substituting fiction and fantasy for facts people will no longer be able to trust what it says anywhere.Rktect 21:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

On civility.

I don't appreciate you dismissing offhand my objection to the impugning of my motives as "just my imagination." Your edit summary was not at all civil and I think you know this. Italiavivi 01:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY are supposed to condemn personal attacks and incivility, not serve as a license to see malicious intent in largely benign statements. Suggesting that "just your imagination" is incivil is preposterous. -- tariqabjotu 02:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I simply hope you can see how being so terse and dismissive of others' concerns comes across as haughty and inflammatory. That's all. Italiavivi 02:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't, because I don't see anything "terse" and "dismissive." You could have simply responded with a "If you were talking about me then..." comment if you honestly thought he was talking about you (I don't think he was talking about you or anyone on the talk page for that matter... just hypothesizing). If you are insulted by Chris' statement and my "just your imagination" edit summary, you're going to be shocked, and perhaps disturbed, by some of the things you read on Misplaced Pages, such as, for instance, more direct personal attacks. -- tariqabjotu 02:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

ban for User:Tajik

Hello. I complained to several admins about the ban they placed on User:Tajik. He is being accused of being user:Tajik-Professor. I know for a fact that that is not him. User:Tajik has been on Misplaced Pages for 3 years and is the best contributer I have seen, just look at his awards and his record. User:Tajik-Professor also lives in Germany and that is why his IP is in the same range, but the admins looked more carefully they would see their IPs are not the same. Also, User:Tajik-Professor if you check my talk page you can see he asked me for help. Obviously User:Tajik who is a veteran editor wouldn't be asking me for help and other easy things like how to open an article! You can see that here. So please take a look at this and review this again because its very obvious once you see this and we need User:Tajik on Misplaced Pages, he is the best editor that I know of, so please do look into this. It is whats best for the Encyclopedia and I am very concerned about the articles without him. Thank you. --Behnam 21:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters whether Tajik is indeed Tajik-Professor; it is quite clear, especially considered the history of Safavid dynasty, that Tajik is editing from anonymous IPs and/or using sockpuppets to evade his block. -- tariqabjotu 01:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

But if you check his talk page/block log, it shows that the reason he was banned was because he was prematurely accused of being user:Tajik-Professor. Please check his block history here. It says, "Tajik, the determination was made based on a CheckUser result, which showed that it was highly likely that both User:Tajik-Professor and other anons are you based on IP evidence. Dmcdevit·t 01:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)". If the reason provided by the admin for his ban is false than that ban is illegitimate don't you think? --Behnam 03:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Tariqabjotu, from the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY Tariqabjotu!

	HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY!	from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE
	Wishing Tariqabjotu a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Tariqabjotu! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! ~~~~

• FROM YOUR FRIEND:

 ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

AMG Chemmani RfM

Would you remove me from this RfM? I don't really have the time to participate, and my entire involvement can be seen in my comments on the talk page in response to a request for a third opinion. Lexicon (talk) 06:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

	HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY!	from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE
	Wishing Tariqabjotu a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee

Politics rule 12:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Tariqabjotu, from the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

-BigBrotherIsWatchingYou 13:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | 16:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your comments. Some of those you posted are taken out of context, I'll post which ones on the talk page tomorrow, I'm tired tonight. Good night.Hajji Piruz 04:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I made some responses to some of your comments. Some of the comments you made regarding me were either taken out of context or because you werent involved in the discussion on other pages (for example, the comment about Bushytails). Thanks, looking forward to your response.Hajji Piruz 19:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Few days off

I will offline for few days, just to let you know regarding the mediation. Thanks you for all your helpTaprobanus 21:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on the agreements and disagreements we may still have edit warring on Chemmani mass grave the article. If that is so should we take itto arbitration ? Taprobanus 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee rarely hears cases regarding content disputes and focuses instead on actions of editors. However, persistent edit warring is conduct which the committee may hear. If that does occur, depending on the severity of the conduct, anyone can seek a request for arbitration. -- tariqabjotu 19:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

2007 London car bombs AfD

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2007 London car bombs. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Cat 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Islam

I take your point - it's one of those very few "special cases", and I totally agree here - Alison ☺ 02:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) (and I'm a staunch "unprotectionist", as you know!)

Sock

I see, perhaps a different banned user. Though, having reviewed the histories, several His excellency socks were earlier misidentified as those of the editor in the Hklekar case upon the same subject-related basis: there is actually no evidence that the other editor has ever returned to this battle. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/His excellency for what we are dealing with (lest we find peace now that DavidYork71 appears to have given up.) Please do not respond on my talk page.Proabivouac 06:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI

User:Arrow740 after his first block by User:Durova said: . He classifies users (and himself) according to their religion. --Aminz 23:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That's an overstatement. -- tariqabjotu 23:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Which one? Arrow's attitude towards Islam is clear: , , “Muslim societies are backward because of Islam” --Aminz 00:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The classification piece was an overstatement. I'm not sure what reaction you're expecting to those three links. -- tariqabjotu 00:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I posted this link in relation to Arrow's idea that he was blocked because of religous reasons. My second post was a misunderstanding of your reply. Anyways, have good times. --Aminz 06:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Arrow should never have been blocked and your decision to do so (and refusal to unblock) is in my opinion poor use of your administrative powers. Talmage 05:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Islam

I've amended the featured article section to exclude Islam, because it's very volatile (ANI posts suggest a future wheel war) on the grounds of WP:IAR. What should be done next with the article? Full-protection? Evilclown93_(talk) 00:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That seemed like a good idea, but I would probably revert that change. Within the next ten minutes, someone's going to say, "wait a second, wasn't Islam on the Main Page yesterday?" Ignoring all rules in highly-visible locations tend to lead to that... I personally didn't think the protection on the article was a big deal. -- tariqabjotu 00:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Review

Hi Tariq, Perhaps you could take a look at this, which seems quite odd to me (similar to the event a few days back). Let me know what you think, Tewfik 19:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting pattern

• 04:32, 21 June 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Itaqallah (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (4RR actually)
• 03:45, 27 June 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Halaqah (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (3rr AFrican slave trade)
• 05:15, 27 June 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Tigeroo (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (Three-revert rule violation: Battle of Khaybar)
• 03:23, 2 July 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Dashes (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Three-revert rule violation: on Islam)
• 02:21, 4 July 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Aminz (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Three-revert rule violation: Islam)

These are Blnguyen's five latest blocks for 3RR. He hasn't blocked anyone else for the same offense since May 9th. Do you notice a pattern? What can you do about it? I've brought this to you because you may not be a Muslim anymore, but you do know what it feels like. Peace. Lovegroup 04:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

By sheer coincidence, I was bringing up something similar with Blnguyen while you were posting this. -- tariqabjotu 04:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern for a blocked editor, Aminz, in that you blocked my previous account thinking that it was him. Please note that I am not Aminz, nor am I any editor among these logs. If you have a friend among the people who have checkuser capability, feel absolutely free to have them confirm that fact. You posted that comment so quickly to his talk page that I wondered whether you had done so completely on your own accord, and I applaud you for noticing it by yourself. But you should also be aware that the administrator you're dealing with is in a position of trust - the ArbCom, the group that must supposedly be absolutely neutral. Posting this on his talk page will, in the end, have no effect at all. And it surprises me that you also had said "I'm not saying you're biased (no, I'm not even being facetious about that; I don't think you are." Because when one asks oneself "what are the chances of all this happening by chance, i.e. complete coincidence?" the answer is obvious: there is no chance at all. Wa Alaikum Assalam. P.S.: please leave this account unblocked. Lovegroup5 04:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There are other explanations besides a bias against Muslims. -- tariqabjotu 04:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if you're saying that the other explanation is that this administrator is being influenced by an editor with zealous anti-Islamic/anti-Muslim opinions, that does not bode quite well for an arbitrator either. Lovegroup 04:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Let him explain. -- tariqabjotu 04:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

They are all violations. There's nothing to explain. The real issue is why tariqabjotu declined to block two of these editors; instead, he choose to block me when I hadn't violated 3RR. Perhaps when other admins don't want to involve themselves in this highly acrimonious area of wikipedia, B1nguyen does the right thing. Arrow740 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I decided against bringing up tariqabjotu's behavior after he blocked me for 3RR when I hadn't violated it. Now that he has brought it up, I have to say that it is hypocritical for the person who actually has been choosing to use or not to use his tools for reasons outside of policy to accuse someone who actually follows the policy of wrong-doing. Arrow740 07:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You clearly did not even read what I wrote to Blnguyen (and perhaps not even his response). Blocking for fewer than four reverts in twenty-four hours is entirely within the bounds of policy (as noted in the intro for WP:3RR), particularly when the editor has made not four, but five reverts in twenty-six hours. Your suggestion that After Midnight was also biased because he allegedly has had conflict with another user who agreed with you on something is just an excuse. You seem bitter about the block, and unfortunately don't believe you did anything wrong, and so you are searching for a way to dismiss my actions, and the actions of After Midnight, as bias rather than a valid block that simply did not result from straight revert counting. Blnguyen said he prefers straight revert counting when it comes to religious and ethnic articles; I and After Midnight, on the other hand, apparently are willing to deviate. That does not mean Blnguyen is within policy and I am not; it means he took a different approach than me – one I find puzzling, and don't agree with, because he was okay with blocking Dashes and not okay with blocking you (but again, that, I presume, comes from straight revert counting). Your inability to see this as a difference of opinion on 3RR blocks is disheartening, but not a big deal to me. You appear to have made up your mind that I have some bias against you, using selective evidence to support your position and ignoring contrary evidence. Unlike you, I was merely asking Blnguyen for an explanation for the surprising recent series of events, not convicting him of bias without hearing or asking for his thoughts. So, if you have a further issue with this, bring it up to WP:ANI or WP:COIN, where I will gladly sink your argument. Otherwise – and I believe this is the better route – you should drop this issue and quit taunting me with your allegations. -- tariqabjotu 17:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(removing indent) I'm not saying you should be desysoped for blocking me. But perhaps you should rethink your blocking strategy. The fact is that you declined to block two Muslims who had violated 3RR and chose to block someone like me who hadn't (using two of my three reverts on a likely sock who was doing nothing but removing sourced content on main page day), then didn't block another Muslim, Aminz, who was also at 3R and being disuptive on top of that. As I said, I planned to let sleeping dogs lie until your posts yesterday. Arrow740 19:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

When I respond to 3RR reports, I don't categorize people based on their religion. Additionally, realize that I am under no obligation to respond to every 3RR request; it's not like that's my job. So, I'm not sure where you're getting two Muslims from (one is obviously Itaqallah, although his religion had no bearing on my response to the report) and I'm not sure why you're holding the Aminz report against me. I never suggested that you wanted me desyopped; I only said you're taunting me with allegations based on questionable evidence (and you're still doing that). If you will drop this and rescind the accusations, terrific. If you're not willing to do that, there are multiple forums through which we could put this matter to rest; just don't keep libeling me on my talk page. -- tariqabjotu 19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The second is Dashes. About Aminz, since he was clearly being much worse than me and also had 3 reverts, you were unfair in blocking me and not him. Also libel is a false accusation, and I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointing out the facts. Arrow740 19:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointing out the facts So, this whole conversation is about reminding me who I have and have not blocked over the past few days? C'mon... I'm not a moron; you're building a case suggesting I'm biased toward Muslims. You've been more direct about it at times than others, but that's precisely what you're doing. -- tariqabjotu 20:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't if an administrator is biased, actually, but whether said bias is damaging the project. I see no reason to believe that either Blnguyen or Tariqabjotu is doing that.Proabivouac 18:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, Lovegroup is banned user His excellency. B1Nguyen said so on the talk page. Please do not allow this extremely disruptive user who has had a dozen socks active in the last week to influence the project further. Arrow740 19:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to put all this behind me and move on. I hope you would like to do so as well. Happy Independence Day. Arrow740 22:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing for me to put behind me; I have nothing against you and have always maintained that. What you see as bias is just a mere coincidence of events (in the same way that Blnguyen's recent actions have been mere coincidence and are not motivated by bias against Muslims). If by putting all this behind you, you mean you will rescind the accusations of bias, then that would be great. However, if you're not going to do that, I have little choice but to defend myself against them when necessary. But happy Independence Day to you too anyway. -- tariqabjotu 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, Blnguyen's actions are different because he is actually acting according to policies - if you want to keep bringing this up I will continue as well. I haven't accused you of bias outright. I've just objected to your recent behavior, but I'm willing to put it aside and see how things proceed in the future. Arrow740 23:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)