User talk:BhaiSaab/A4

Archives

1 2 3

Acting uncivil in Talk:Council on American-Islamic Relations#Discuss splitting off of criticism

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Netaji 06:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Point out which comment you found to be uncivil. BhaiSaab ^talk 15:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"petty excuses to hold a double standard" was not a personal attack. BhaiSaab ^talk 15:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was, Janaab.Netaji 00:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NPA#Examples. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this "Netaji" person lost his head (206.126.82.31 23:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC))

Revert war

I will revert your changes to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh tomorrow unless you provide a non-biased reference. HRW has been exposed as anti-Semitic. You might like that, but the civilised world reviles anti-Semitism and all the ensuing bias that comes from it.Netaji 00:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting that you are anti-Semitic is not a personal attack. You have explicitly stated that you hate Israel. That is an anti-Semitic statement.Netaji 00:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The anti-Defamation league has produced detailed surveys that point out that most critics of Israel are merely using the superficial distinction of Israel vs Jews as a veil to hide their anti-Semitic hatred. If you criticize Israel, there is a statistical probability of significant value that you have anti-Semitic views, even though you are unaware of it at the conscious level. I suggest that you interact with Jewish groups and educate yourself about anti-Semitism and the evil that it has spawned in the muslim world today. This is for your own good.Netaji 00:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Not arbitrary at all. produced by esteemed scholars.Netaji 00:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Curious

Hi, Bahi Saab. What happened to Timothy Usher and Pecher. Why they have resigned? I am curious. Can you please give some information? Thanks --- Faisal 00:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I got my answer while reading His Excellency arbitration page. --- Faisal 01:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

islam by country

some people are trying to erase the pic i had uploded first they reverted it now i have recieved this message

"Hi. This image you uploaded (Image:Muslims population.gif) says that it is copyright with all rights reserved. The link which is supposed to point to the permission to reproduce the image does not appear to mention anything which gives permission. Could you please identify where it says that the image can reproduced for any purpose, otherwise (especially given the copyright text on the image, and the notices above on this page) I think it may be fair to assume that no permission has been given. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)"

please help!Madman 0014 12:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)User:Madman_0014

Islamic Barnstar Award

Please offer your opinion, vote, or whatever about your choice for the image to be used with the Islamic Barnstar Award at the Barnstar proposals page. Although there is consensus for the concept of an Islamic Barnstar Award, some editors would like to change the image for the award. I was just thinking you should be aware of this discussion because you have contributed to Islamic-related articles, received the Islamic Barnstar Award, or have contributed to the Islam-related Wikiprojects, etc.--JuanMuslim ^1m 02:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Citecop

I was unaware of the block though I heard netaji was blocked for some time.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Bakasuprman

i think he is a sockpuppet of Subash_Bose... I have provided evidence here... evidence --Geek1975 09:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Check User

Hello there. Sorry, but only people with checkuser access are allowed to see a contributors IP address, and they are listed here. Thanks, 17:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto for you too=

Stop vandalizing other users' pages. 66.38.180.253 21:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide an example. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

here: [[1] 66.38.180.253 21:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether it's true or not is irrelevant - you were blocked with the reasoning provided by an admin and the notice can be taken down when and if you are unblocked. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The allegation is totally false and a simple checkuser request can prove that, which you chose not to do. I couldn't care less about being beeing blocked nothwithstanding the fact that the block is completely unfair and shows the total stupidity and arrogance of some admins. However, clearly you have no business to "vandalize" any user's talk page. And if you think you can do that, I reserve the right to do that too. 66.38.180.253 21:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not up to me to perform a checkuser. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert Spencer

There is a dispute there. Can you please join the discussion. --Reza1 00:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Help on Robert Spencer

Would you please help me on Robert Spencer. Some editors keep removing sourced material on Robert Spencer. (The controversy section). Thanks. --Reza1 18:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your presense. THANK YOU SO MUCH --Reza1 02:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Subhash bose's talk page

You may want to assume WP:AGF there. Calling him a "liar" violates WP:CIVIL.

As for warnings, yourself and Timothy Usher warned me the same way, and Timothy Usher and Netscott vandalized my posts the same way. I am not calling all three of you socks. Heck, even I warn in a similar way of Netaji. Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not call him a liar. I said I believed him to be lying. Please reread the message and do not misrepresent my statements. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If you believe he is lying, then you believe him to be a liar, because liars lie. Logically, then you branded him a "liar".Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This argument is non-sequitur. Liars lie, but not everyone who lies is a habitual liar. If you took my statement to be calling him a liar, than you're making your own assumptions there and I can't be blamed if you may think Subhash bose is a liar. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes but a person who lies is a liar just like a person who swims is a swimmer. Therefore you called him a liar because you said he lies. If a person played basketball during a period of time he would be considered a "Baller" for that period of time, therefore in that time span, you called him a "liar" because you said he "lied". Its not non-sequitur. Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not call him anything. You're making your own inferences. I don't care if you think Subhash bose is a liar. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I never called him a liar. I see that your arguments have been exhausted and now you are left to try and twist my words.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A tactic that you seem to be quite familiar with. Don't you see the irony? BhaiSaab ^talk 00:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Pleas stop the inane squabbling again. "Believing someone to be lying" is a contravention of AGF and is a kind of personal attack. Blnguyen | rant-line 00:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

When someone states that I knowingly made false statements, it's perfectly reasonably to say that I believe they're lying. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

3rr

You do not get to bloat an article with material without explaining why it is relevant. Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AnneCr (talk • contribs) .

RonCram is trying to restart the wafa sultan debate on my userpage.

I thought you should know. Zazaban 16:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

God vs Allah

I put this on the discussion page but i don't think anyone read it.

Comments on Poll

This seems to have passed. BhaiSaab talk 19:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear friends. Hello. I’m new. Apologies in advance if the formatting gets screwed up somehow (WP needs an Undo button). If I may, I’d like to add an opinion, even though you have closed your poll (does that mean no one will read this?)

I find it a bit sad that Allah can so easily be reduced to God in order to avoid confusion. My points are as follows:

1. If someone types in Allah, Koran/Qur'an, Muhammad, or Islam then what they are looking for is easy to understand information. They want a perspective, an Islamic perspective. I think it is quite common knowledge in the west now that Muslims refer to God by using the name Allah. So therefore, the mere use of this name should not cause too much confusion.

2. If a tribe in the Amazon worships “Wibble” as their supreme deity and the method of worship involves wild orgies and eating sacrificial snakes, then I would be quite confused to read that they were worshiping “God”. A writer could easily say that they believe in one supreme being, thus making “Wibble” equal to “God” (complete with orgies and consumption of snakes). Wouldn’t the use of “God” in this case create equal amounts of confusion? (My Christian mother would probably react with “that’s no God I ever heard of!)

3. A Christian reading the page about an Islamic related issue may develop a wrong perception about Allah as a result of seeing the word God. After reading that Muslims believe in God, the Christian may think/assume that Muslims also worship Jesus (trinity: Jesus is God). I once saw an evangelist explaining how Jesus created the universe before he was born. Most Muslims would take issue with that.

4. As a Muslim, I have been taught that the name Allah predates Islam. I have been taught that Allah was always the name of Almighty God, going right back to the time of Adam. Ahmad Deedat, among others, make note of the similarity between the words Elohim (Hebrew) which can also be spelled Alah (with one L), and the words ilah and Allah (Arabic). (Source: http://www.jamaat.net/name/name3.html). Of specific note is the fact that Alah once turned up in a footnote in one version of the Authorised King James Bible because the authors considered alah, elohim and God to be synonomous. However, this use of alah in the Bible was immediately removed and it was reprinted without the offending word.

Please also consider the following opinion from one scholar: “Elohim, the Hebrew word for God, is derived from the word eloh, which means "god." The im is a plural of abstraction, appended at the end for respect. Allah is also related to the word ilah, which is Arabic for "god." Thus, these three words - eloh, alah, ilah - are etymologically equivalent, just as Deus, Dios, and Dio are equivalent names for God in Latin, Spanish, and Italian respectively. The proto-Semitic root for eloh, alah, and ilah is 'LH, which means "to worship." Therefore, the literal meaning of Elohim, Alaha, and Allah is "the one whom is worshipped."” (Source: Dr. Hesham A. Hassaballa: http://drhassaballa.blogspot.com/2005/05/do-we-worship-same-god.html)

The point is that Allah, while etymologically related to ilah, and eloh may not in itself mean ‘god’ in Arabic, although as noted above it can be interpreted as ‘the one who is worshiped’. It cannot be considered as an exclusively Arabic term, or an exclusively Islamic term. Also, as noted in the discussion points further above, Arabic Bibles (and also Indonesian ones) use the word Allah as being the same as “God”. Allah is not generally translated as anything else by the Muslim scholars that I know because Allah is used as the name of God and not a reference term. Some Muslim scholars, I think primarily those residing in Western countries, do make use of God instead of Allah. (For example see What’s Right With Islam is What’s Right With America, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf – Imam of Masjid Al Farah in New York). In this case, I believe that the use of God instead of Allah is more to do with public acceptance of a book (which will, of course, help sales) than to do with an academic discussion of the difference in meaning between the terms (no disrespect intended to the Imam – this is only my opinion and I could be wrong about it). The quotes from the Qur'an in this book also make use of God only. Allah has disappeared.

While there is considerable debate among scholars over whether Allah is a name or not a name, the point remains that non-Muslims will not be shocked by reading Allah in text relating to Islamic issues. To give them a steady diet of God (see Islamic concept of God) just detracts from the fact that they were keen to learn about what makes Islam tick. They wanted to know what makes Islam Islam. And one of those things is the use of Allah when referring to Almighty God. If some readers then consider that Allah is a different God to the Judeo Christian God, then in my opinion, that is a separate issue and one that should be dealt with separately and more fully in the section “see Islamic concept of God”.

From my perspective as a Muslim, being a Muslim and explaining Islam to others means referring to Allah. And then I explain that Allah and God are one in the same. But Jesus is not synonymous with Allah (unlike the Trinity). I am currently writing a book about Islam in Indonesia and I do make use of God instead of Allah in some sections, but I do so primarily when discussing western concepts of religion. In order to make it clear to the reader that I am referring to western Christian beliefs, then I use God. But when specifically speaking about Islamic issues, I tend to use Allah. Allah for me is synonymous with Islam in the Islamic world and thus should be presented to interested readers as a fundamental part of our faith, not an easily translatable and generic term like masjid/mosque.

My vote (although it’s probably too late) is:

Do not support. Use Allah in the text and in the quotations, because in my opinion, that’s what the reader wants to know about. Any reader who gets confused can exert themselves just a little more and click on “Allah (see Islamic concept of God)”. Kind regards. Hope my comments are useful. Sorry for the length. Iqraboy 17:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Women in Muslim societies

Salaam, I need your help here to alleviate status of women in Islam. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 02:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraph for Muhammad

Please join the discussion created for this purpose on the talk page before reverting it any more. There appears to be a distinct difference of opinion occuring, and so the matter should be discussed to form consensus, or the prior consensus pointed out. LinaMishima 18:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin

OK il do that in future - we're going to have difficulty with the article for a while anyway PMA 17:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[2] made on September 4 2006 to Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations==

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

The duration of the block is 48 hours. William M. Connolley 22:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The reverts were way more than 24 hours. The changes were discussed already on Talk:Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations, if you care to look, but CltFn continually reverts against consensus. I've been unblocked by another admin. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I got the timestamps wrong, so my apologies for the block. However "way more than..." is wrong William M. Connolley 08:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World‎

The statement in the impact section is self supported , if you wanted to challenge the veracity of the list , so I provided a list from goodle scholar. If you want to see a list of books, then I can include them in the article, but that seems like it will bloat things up. You are only wasting everyone's time with these continual reverts.--CltFn 04:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This did use hagarism as a reference and you can even see extracts of what they said on google scholar.--CltFn 04:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Islamic critics

I'm surprised I haven't been complained against yet for deleting something with 60%, so to speak. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

CltFn

Thanks for your input onto the suspected sock puppet case of CltFn. I have decided to block the account, and so a checkuser is not needed for this case. Thanks anyway, though! Iolakana•T 17:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Kilo-Lima beat me to it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Islam

I think this paragraph is very important and it should stay on this site.DAde 18:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I will post a additional verse for every revert you make.There are enough intolerant verses in the Quran.DAde 18:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Hindu and Muslim

Since Christian contains the link Criticism of Christianity and you insist that Hindu contain Criticism of Hinduism I hope you will agree that Muslim should contain Criticism of Islam. While I think that neither article should contain criticism section (because criticism pertains to religion, not people like Muslim, Christian or Hindu), in the interests of equality I am putting the criticism section on Muslim also.Hkelkar 18:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I will remove criticism of Islam link from Muslim article also.Hkelkar 18:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation?

Hi. Thanks for your note. I do not believe that I was committing 3RR violation. Particularly when two users (you and Basawala) were "gaming the system". Under such circumstances I believe I am justified somewhat. If you would like to dicsuss future changes I would be happy to debate with you in the talk page. Please don;t become hostile like Basawala.Hkelkar 21:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Types of Bismillah Halal

Hello there! I respect your deletion of one of the types of bismillah halal, but would also like to mention that I believe that there are people who do follow that type of bismillah halal. Is there any way we can compromise here? Thanks.Starwarp2k2 00:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If I could find a source, I would have done so long ago. And yes, adherents to the philisophy of "anything becomes halal after saying bismillah" theoretically do not exclude neither pork nor alcohol. My suggested compromise is to include it in the article, but also to include an unsourced tag.Starwarp2k2 17:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you want a source and so do I, but therein lies the problem. I know the philosophy exists but cannot find any valid source to accompany my assertion. Thus I proposed the unsourced tag. Why not let it serve it's function?Starwarp2k2 02:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather than deeming it as an insignificant opinion, can't that also mean that the topic of "halal" has not been turned into a science yet, and few if any scholars have tried to summarize "halal" because of the multitude of its definitions as well as the divisions it has caused among the people who adhere to any form of it? I keep repeating it, but wasn't this the very reason that the "unsourced" tag was created?Starwarp2k2 03:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Then this should suffice?Starwarp2k2 03:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No hard feelings?Starwarp2k2 03:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:

tell me why its not civil. I'm not reading through WP:CIVIl just to incriminate myself.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm keeping it on until each of the users apologize to me for their actions per WP:CIVIL.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I havent ran into you for a long time Ill tell you theyre mostly dealing with comments made against me by Dbachmann and TerryJ-Ho. Status quo is good because nobody reads those anyways, and if I moved it to a user subpage, another Fundywatch would happen. I'd rather we keep out of each others business and let the status quo stay. It was better when we were ignoring each other.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar is way more civil than Subhash_bose. In the last month Subhash has been blocked more than than he has been on normal activity. Hkelkar has never been blocked.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You're giving him too much credit.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Has Hkelkar used "Nein Mein Freund" anytime? Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Check this out [3]. As well as the subjects of this user [4]. So they not only are from the same country and studying in the same Univ, they even have the same subjects. Haphar 07:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You are also from the same country as I. Plus, I am not, strictly speaking, a Hindu. My mother is a Jew so I am a Jew first, though my father is a Hindu.Hkelkar 15:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

bose is actually very much gentile.I got him interested in Judaism coz I talk about it a lot after I started Daf Yomi.Hkelkar 16:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Now you are turning desperate if you're using my Jewishness against me. Plus, a righteous gentile like bose is hardly rare. Many Hindus are righteous gentiles, though YOU may not have known this.Hkelkar 16:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This accusation shares a lot of similarities to multiple accusations of Anti-Semitism that Subhash bose made against me. I wonder how many more similarities are yet to surface. I'm not at all using your "jewishness" against you, but pointing out one of the many similarities you share with Subhash bose. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely- Many hindus are gentiles, I know lots, but to return to the topic ,like BhaiSaab - I too have been accused of Anti-Semetism by Subhash. So the similiarities are a bit too much. India, Mumbai- U.S.A- Austin-Physics-Jews and right wing Hinduism. Probability ( you should know the mathematics of that) is pretty low of such a large overlap.Also do not understand the "you are turning desperate" bit- no one had said anything to you at that stage. Haphar 16:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Nein mein freund.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Du bist mir ein feiner Freund! Haphar 06:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

re: shahadah in Islam article

السلام عليكم

as far as i am aware, you added a cite for the current translation of the shahadah, specifically "ilah". would you endorse a change from "no god" to "none worthy of worship" as per the following sources [5] (seemingly uses it interchangably, though the proposed change more frequently), [6], [7] ? one could also do a yahoo search for other places which may render it in this way. also, lane's lexicon may be relevant here [8], [9]. thanks. ITAQALLAH 00:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Afghan death penalty for apostacy

You are not the first to ask me to qualify this, and there is discussion at Talk:Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy, but what it says all which is said in the cited article, and I believe it to be true from other recent media reports, with being familiar with the particulars. -- Kendrick7 18:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right, wrong editor. -- Kendrick7 19:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

explain

This edit. There is a better article Rana Bhagwandas so reason for deletion is valid. Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry's page does not have an honorific, why should the acting Chief Justice have one? I am reinstating the db tag.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That works too.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Re AfD

Hi Bhai. I do think the same but let's see what would happen. There should be another admin who may decide that as i was the nom. -- Szvest 16:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF

Actually this applies more to you than to me. Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. --CltFn 20:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not required to assume good faith of you, because you are a sockpuppeteer. Please read the policy. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You are not exempt from the rules of Wikipedia. I have paid the penalty and I am editor in good standing.--CltFn 20:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

When did I say I'm exempt from policy? WP:AGF states "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, sockpuppetry, and lying." so it's part of policy that I'm not required to assume good faith of you. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Your accusations are without merit and you obviously are carrying a personal vendetta in wikipedia as you do not agree with my edits. I am in good standing so at this point you ought to assume the same good faith that you would expect applied to yourself.--CltFn 20:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

My accusations are not without merit. Please take a look at your userpage. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That is over and done with , the penalty was carry out and I am back , so stop trying to pull this out of the past.--CltFn 20:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Had you not been caught, you would have continued to use the sockpuppet, as you did for many months. It is hardly "the past." Again, I'm not required to assume good faith of sockpuppeteers. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You are a sockpuppeter yourself , and you know it , so do not accuse others of what you yourself are doing.--CltFn 20:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You make a lot of accusations, but you don't show too much proof. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you are saying that you have never used multiple accounts?--CltFn 20:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That is precisely what I'm saying. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I didn't even break the 3rr rule on Craig Winn. How exactly am I gaming the system?

Decline reason:

Continual edit warring is problematic, as Centrx is pointing out below. That's the reason you were blocked. And it's only 24 hours. I'd be more concerned, though, because you've been blocked so MANY times for edit warring, that you should probably be blocked for significantly longer next time. Mangojuice^talk 14:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

---

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

I have been blocked 4 times for 3rr, but as you can see from my block history, two of them were mistaken and I was unblocked. So it's not "so MANY times." BhaiSaab ^talk 18:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring

I've blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring on multiple articles, like Craig Winn, Al-Qaeda's New Front, Irshad Manji, etc. In particular, making three reverts yourself, just so you can report the other guy for 3RR violation is a bad thing. Edit warring is unacceptable all around, and that attitude shows you using it as an editing strategy. You've been blocked for this before, please stop. Dmcdevit·t 20:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Why do you even have the 3rr policy if we can't make 3 reverts of highly POV material? The other articles only have 1 or 2 reverts. I did not force anyone to break the 3rr rule, and you seem to be hinting that I somehow made CltFn choose to break it. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR is an electric fence, an arbitrary amount you cannot cross without getting shocked. However, it's just arbitrary, and it's there because any and all edit warring is bad. It is explicitly not an entitlement to any reverts at all. Dmcdevit·t 20:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well why not make it arbitrarily 1 revert so that way admins can "shock" whoever they want? Especially when the other editor is a sockpuppeteer who has a history of misrepresenting material and when I didn't even break 3rr, I find it this block highly unwarranted. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, Craig Winn has degrees in marketing and finance. He seems to adopt medieval conceptions of Muhammad which Annemarie Schimmel states is a thoroughly distorted view of Muhammad and cf. Schimmel, Islam: An Introduction, 1992; and Benard Lewis states that modern historians wouldn't agree with. cf. The Arabs in History, Lewis, p.45. Thanks --Aminz 21:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not edit war, period. It accomplishes nothing. —Centrx→talk • 21:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We have a legitimate editwarring and an il-legitimate one. Craig Winn is an Islamophobe, and actually an uneducated one unfortunately. --Aminz 21:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the favored version might be "right", but reverting it back and forth still accomplishes nothing. The edit war does not succeed in implementing the "right" version. —Centrx→talk • 22:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I do believe that as long as all parties act logically, edit warring is of no use. Otherwise it is legitimate. --Aminz 22:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

CltFn continued to remove "self-published" on Craig Winn. See [10]. He is obviously self-published. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. Did you expect an academic press to publish his books? He is a business man and has enough money. CltFn's removal of self-published is POV pushing and he had done this before. Strange that you were blocked. Are you being punished for your previous sins? 3rr is supposed to be only preventive. Tell me what you have done, BhaiSaab? --Aminz 21:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Its amazing,looking at the case I myself was blocked for breaking 3RR 2times in succession and within hrs it was found bogus allegation.It seems admins are not working properly and seeking refuse in dubious clauses like gaming the system.Infact whenever an admin makes many allegations on you be sure the guy is himself a nuisance who don't know his own mind,I am really concerned about this aspect pf wikipedia for these admins are themselves becoming big hurdles.Won't wikipedia be better without them. Ikon |no-blast 09:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinion about this case as Dmcdevit seems to have blocked BhaiSaab for his past sins. However, I agree with you that some of the admins are out of control. Well, all we need is the requirement of admins to renew their adminship (every year, 6 month, etc.) Thus we need to change the policy. The policies are discussed here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). But I think we need the support from some admins (who are more respected than editors like me and you) and many other editors to achieve this.--Aminz 09:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

User:BhaiSaab follows the rules, rising or falling in his behavior as they're given to him. What you want from him, write into policy and its enforcement and you will assuredly get it. This is known as the lawful alignment. And why do we have the 3RR policy if we're to block users for 2RR? Just say what the rules are and lawful users like BhaiSaab will follow them.

User:Dmcdevit...I'm not sure to whom he's accountable if anyone. Certainly not justice in the most orthodox sense of the word. Certainly not Wikipedia policy. Who's more disruptive, BhaiSaab or Dmcdevit's Arbitration Commmittee? Any editor who's dealt with both knows who is more uncivil, who is less sincere, who takes more time, who is more charitable, who is less communicative, who is less wikilike and transparent, who assumes less good faith and who is overall immeasurably more difficult.

Please unblock BhaiSaab.SadTruth 10:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Aminz and sadtruth its not about Bhaisaab anymore,infact it is becoming a general problem.From my experience I know many admins on wikipedia don't have any other work but to exercise blocks (without even looking into merits of the case);isn't it high time we should discuss about relieving wikipedia of these admins who are more a sort of trolls. Ikon |no-blast 10:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)