Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:55, 23 August 2005

Old Stuff

new vfd

The prior VFD that you voted at ended with no consensus, a new VFD has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Historical persecution by Muslims. ~~~~ 18:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

VfD pollution

Ril enlisted Persecution by Muslims for VfD again, just 24 hours after the article withstood the first VfD. You might be interested to watch it. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 10:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Slave trade

It seems that Guy Montag and Jayjg have blindly reverted our edits at that article.Heraclius 17:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Blindly? I examined every edit you made; none benefitted the article. As for Tom's edits, they're still in the article. Jayjg 17:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Dispute with an admin

Hi,

I have a complaint against UninvitedCompany, an administrator. Basically, he violated the blocking policy, by blocking me (for 72 hours) after I made 2 reverts, claiming I had broken the 3RR policy listing 4 reverts - 22:51 5 August 2005, 23:00 5 August 2005, 08:58 6 August, 23:12 6 August 2005 - however, none of these cover a period over 24 hours. At the time of the fourth revert listed, there was only 1 prior revert in the prior 24 hours. This is also true for the time of the 3rd revert listed.

I accused UnivitedCompany of breaking the blocking policy, and UnivitedCompany openly admitted doing so - "I have indeed violated the letter of the blocking policy". I also accused UninvitedCompany of blocking me because he/she has an anti-Islamic POV and didn't like the fact that I was opposing anti-Islamic POV pushers, UninvitedCompany replied admitting that they have an "extremely anti-Islamic" POV.

I don't feel this is appropriate behaviour for an administrator - violating blocking policy, and reinterpreting 3RR as 1RR, simply to punish people whose opinions they disagree with, isn't really something that should be permissable. Several administrators have already stated that the block was probably inappropriate (and none have supported UninvitedCompany's stance), but they seem unwilling to become involved (possibly due to UninvitedCompany's status as a longstanding admin (which UninvitedCompany claims makes him a "senior administrator", a post which simply does not exist), not that a cabal exists).

I would like to raise an RFC over the matter, but I need a co-signatory to do so, so I was wondering if you would be able to look into the matter.

Thanks,

-Ril-

~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - User:-Ril-/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/UninvitedCompany

~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

source

Do you have a source for this?

• • • Ariel Sharon (during an interview with General Ouze Merham in 1956) "I vow that I’ll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian women and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian child’s existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian woman is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do"

--Irishpunktom\ 14:30, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

3. (very POV website)
4. (guardian newspaper)
9. (Daily Mirror (not the UK newspaper, but one from elsewhere))
10. (Annual Islamophobia awards (UK)) - this is where I first got it from
12. (Palestine chronicle)

~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Why are these all using Google cache? And why are you quoting reader comments (ala a comment in the Guardian blog) as verifiable?! Absurd. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The quote is actually taken from a fictional work In the Land of Israel by Amos Oz, and has been attributed on propaganda sites to Sharon. It's a well-known hoax. See Jayjg 01:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

See Ouze Merham. Cheers, HKT 03:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Three-revert rule violation

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule on Al-Andalus. --Michael Snow 07:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Ill take a look :) --Striver 19:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Al-Andalus

If this dif shows the revert war then I would say this... haven should definitely not be linked to as it has no useful definition pertinent to what it's being linked for. I would also remove haven... which seems to be the main point of contention. I wouldn't mind saying that they were "quite tolerant"... I would also remove that source... it's on an orthopedics page... so... not the most trustworthy... if it comes originally from a good source then you can link that. If there is a strong source that says the took in Jews and Sufis then I think "absorbing religious minorities persecuted in other lands, such as Jews and Sufis" would be fine using the other source. There is plenty linked about tolerance here. I would give up on that battle or compromise and find a source talking about how dhimmis didn't have to serve in the military... I know that's true in most doctrine... I don't know if this happened in Al-Andalus but if it's true it's notable. This may not have been the answer you wanted but... that's what I think about it all. gren グレン 19:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd cite that book about the Malis going as an example for that opening. I don't think haven is any simpler than saying "place of tolerance". I think something like that will suffice... I don't think it's something worth getting into an edit war over and I do see Jayjg's point... haven implies a lot... as if many were fleeing and all went there... I don't know... I personally don't think haven is too bad or implies too much more than place of tolerance.... maybe you'd prefer refuge... if that'd be allowed but I think that'd be the same problem as haven. gren グレン 03:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

hi

First of all, its not "near the end of time", Shia started dissliking Umar from the very first, refer to Sahi Muslim to read that Ali And Ibn Abbas thought of Umar and Abu Bakr as liers, sinfull, treacherous and dishonest.

For the second part, Umar and Abu Bakr both abused and talked bad of other Sahaba, so if anything, im following their way.

Third, in one hadith it is clear that Muhammad (as) did not regard Khalid ibn Walid as a Sahaba. So in Muhammads (as) view, not anyone was a sahaba.

--Striver 11:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Be aware

Thanks for the heads up. It's something like that I would expect from him. Anyway, it's not much I can do about it, but to let the facts talk for themselves. Oh, I really don't like the "ganging up" mentality some people get. All I want to do is to do some edits and then get on with my life. I neither want not have the time to build up a gang to wage war. // Liftarn

3RR at Al-Andalus

Tom, by re-adding the phrase "noted for its tolerance, was a refuge for people fleeing oppression, such as Jews escaping", you've violated the 3RR at Al-Andalus. Moreover, since you have only provided examples of Jews, the phrase "such as Jews" is incorrect. I recommend you revert yourself before you are blocked. Jayjg 14:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

As I explained, you have reverted to the phrase "noted for its tolerance, was a refuge for people fleeing oppression, such as Jews escaping etc." 4 times now. The only example we have of it being a refuge is for Jews, no other peoples, therefore it is inaccurate, which is why I keep removing it. As well, the phrase "noted for its tolerance" is POV, and we have been disagreeing about that for weeks; it is disingenuous to now claim you don't understand why reverting to it is controversial. Please revert your 3RR violation, as I do not want to see you blocked. Jayjg 14:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Right now I'd like you to revert your 3RR violation, as I'm about to fill out the 3RR report. We can talk about the exact wording of a new version on the Talk: page. Jayjg 15:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm about to hit the submit button, Tom. Please re-consider this course of action. I'll give it a couple more minutes. Jayjg 15:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Since the reference appears to be disputed, my opinion is that J's version should hold until a full citation can be provided. Why not simply wait till you come back from vacation, provide the full cite, and be done with it, rather than engage in violations of 3RR? Personally, judging from what I have read about Gardell's work generally (I have not yet actually read the book), I have serious concerns as to its reliability, but I'll leave it to those who have read it to attack it. Briangotts (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)