User talk:VirtualEye

Sockpuppetry

Re User:Checkmeout101: do not use sockpuppets to evade your block(s).Proabivouac 08:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Now where are those Admins who have microscope to identify my each incivility?

Proabivouac! I thought my IP address can be tracked if I used this sockpuppet? Do you have any source to prove your baseless allegation that I used sockpuppet to unban me? If yes, then I am happy to be banned at my IP forever. And if you dont have prove then you better know what should be the panalty of a person throwing false accusations on others so easily.

Now at this matter I dont have any hope of Justice from the wikipedia admins. VirtualEye 11:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think User:Checkmeout101 is a sock of VirtualEye quite simply because the grammar is way different and User:Checkmeout101 makes all the mistakes of a new user i.e. forgets to sign, re-edits text sections. One could argue that VirtualEye could emulate a new-user but the grammar really would be hard to learn in a day. There is no sock activity here. Ttiotsw 12:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

i concur. ITAQALLAH 13:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not so sure, however, in absence of evidence we should assume good faith. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Now at this matter I dont have any hope of Justice from the wikipedia admins. Please keep the hope and I think no one will ban you for socket puppit thing. I think User:HighInBC is very fair and I totally trust him. I think you are very cool person but have to be bit more careful with your selection of words and understand wikipedia rules better. Things you say I agree with totally but selection of words are sometimes wrong. Furthermore, remember we usually can NOT edit a User page unless it has some violation of wikipedia rule on it or User allow others to edit its page. The joke you have made on User-page might be okay on talk page but was bad on User page (not allowed). Also a joke which was made could have been taken wrongly hence one should avoid things might be taken wrongly. If someone will ban you wrongly then I will fight for it and I like to fight anything that I feel wrong around. --- ALM 14:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I was'nt talking about the Justice in which I am not banned. Nobody can ban me for the reason of sockpuppeting when nobody has proof. I was talking about what do these admins do to the people who attempted to bring a case to ban me on the basis of 'no basis', and not only that they messaged multiple admins to ban me but also tried to eliminated other wikipedian who was opposing the pictures. Hence targetting two aims with one arrow.

Are those users (i.e. Hojimachong and Proabivuac) warned by anyone due to their sick attempt? VirtualEye 15:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well! that is not a big crime to report anyone even to multiple admins. Secondly, we can say that they are reporting you because they know you (if we assume good faith towards them). A person who do not know you (your edits) cannot report you. We have to always assume good faith. Not because wikipedia rule WP:AGF say so but only because Islam's principle is that everyone is innocient/good-person unless confirmed otherwise. I have made many people blocked multiple times due to WP:3RR violations and also one person was blocked indefinitly when he abused me. He was not Muslim and I was Muslim but still they apply the standard equally. I myself never got blocked even if I give Islam always first perference. I will also report them when they violate any rule or make any personal attack. I will report anyone if required. Lastly, two rules are good for a Muslim (according to my knowledge of Islam) 1) forgivness and 2) assuming good faith always (unless 101% sure otherwise). ---- ALM 16:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkmeout101 was obviously a sock puppet. He came with a long diatribe, used weak allegations to attack me and not critique the article, and his only contributions were to the page. It may be a coincidence that the account became active the same day that VirtualEye was banned. I don't know whose sock puppet it is, but it is most definitely a sock puppet. --Hojimachong^talk_con 17:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia allow to change your account. Hence it is possible that he was already registered (not blocked) and then leave one account (without any violation) and started using another. No violation of rules whatsoever. Secondly he might be active with IP address. There is at least one IP address who write good English at Muhammad page and defend not to have pictures. Hence please think more widely and do not start saying each other socket puppit for nothing. Even wikipedia allow to have multiple account in case they are not use to violate WP:3RR or to avoid blocks. User:Hojimachong I urge you to assume good faith if you can please. --- ALM 17:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try ALM. However, it is hard to AGF when some of those whom I argue with do not do the same with me. Don't get me wrong, I love the debates, and respect all of the users there, but I have a short fuse for personal attacks and baseless diatribes. --Hojimachong^talk_con 17:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that is justifiable to say it that if he do not AGF then so is me?? His arguments are not baseless and it is a kind of personal attack too. They might be baseless for you but may be good for me. Hence do not think that where you stand only that is the right view of the world. Anyway I have to work now and cannot spend anymore time here. bye --- ALM 17:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you did not AGF. I have a great deal of respect for you, ALM, and have been able to carry on a respectful dialogue with you. As for VirtualEye:

According to the logs:

• VirtualEye was blocked at 10:15, Feb. 17th, 2007, 24 hr. block ([1])
• According to Checkmeout101's logs, the account was created at 23:03, Feb. 17th, 2007 ([2])

Just food for thought. --Hojimachong^talk_con 17:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

VirtualEye, you wouldn't have been banned anyhow; at worst your block would have been extended, and probably just reset. It's an entirely natural impulse to evade a block in this way, and hardly an uncommon mistake for a fairly new user to make. Perhaps you weren't aware of the sockpuppet policy; now you are. I just told you not to do it, that's all. At this point, there seems to be a consensus to overlook it. So don't worry about it. I'm more concerned with the overall approach you’ve taken to talk pages and your fellow editors. If you can address that, you'll not be blocked to begin with. Sound good?Proabivouac 19:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:RFCU might be justified to settle the matter once and for all. - Merzbow 02:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

care to explain this incivility? --Hojimachong^talk_con 06:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverting back you latest addition on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad page

Please do not add POV statement in the artical, this artical being after a long process and long edit war came to a settlement over the nature of this artical. you addition of this para including statemens like, Mirza Ghulam threathed people who dont belief in his "false" claims..is a POV statement and give immpresion for a reader that he was wrong, it is not the job of a editor or Wikipedia to judge either a person was wrong or right. Please let the artical free of POVs, and other informaiton was present in many related links artical. phippi46 11:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please talk to me before reverting.

I have infact made it pov by giving the critism part some considerable weight. And I did not add my POV nor did I add any third person's POV but I have given the 'word by word' texts from the athored books of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed. What kind of POV is it where I am giving the unaltered reference from his own books? Can you call it unjustified or wrong? You must know that there is much more critism that I have not included so that it remains NPOV. But just giving onesided detail of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed is highly biased, as if the article was written by some of Mirza's followers. VirtualEye 14:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Your POV was when you claim about he was wrong and he made false statements etc. You missed the point completely here, we are not here to judge somebody either you like them or not..Our job as a editor to keep artical as neutral as possible. phippi46 12:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion_.28untainted.29

You voiced your opinion in the original straw poll which has caused some confusion. Please do the same in a new version, Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion_.28untainted.29, which should be clear and allow us to better assess consensus. gren グレン 22:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Vote once, not twice.Proabivouac 06:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am Sick of the allegations and attack of incivility. I think I should withdraw from wikipedia. VirtualEye 06:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to deny that Jesus Fan is a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of yours? You've never denied it, and if you do, then we will assume good faith unless further evidence pops up. --Hojimachong^talk_con 06:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No one quite denied that User:Checkmeout101 was his sockpuppet, either. I will certainly not WP:AGF on this issue; he's been warned, and User:Jesus Fan is as obvious a sockpuppet as I've ever seen (and I've seen quite a few).Proabivouac 06:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, IC so Hojimachong is again moaning. And you are accusing me of sock puppetary, nice, how nice, Ok man keep this weeping and threatening. I must leave this sick place soon. VirtualEye 06:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was giving you a chance to deny that you are Jesus Fan. If you are indeed not him, then there should be no problem denying it. I was giving you a chance to let us assume good faith. I would love to be able to do so. --Hojimachong^talk_con 06:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Funny how the edit summary of User:Jesus Fan here [3] in which the letter 'a' appears on it's own i.e. it looks like 'a)' also seems to happen a lot on edit summaries of VirtualEye . The grammar is also just that little bit odd to match enough. Anyone else know who uses that 'a)' edit summary other than VirtualEye ? Ttiotsw 08:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That tells I am either being fooled by you people or that person called "Jesus Fan". VirtualEye 08:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this useless game. I don't want to see you blocked or banned; I want to see the misconduct stop. Do not use sockpuppets to stack polls; you only discredit yourself and your cause. If Jesus Fan will only remove his "vote," all is fine, but if you continue this disruption, I will pursue this further. Do not create further sockpuppets, for they shall assuredly be identified as such.Proabivouac 09:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Final Warning

Your comments at WP:ANI "What a horrible and systemtic wretched work of Arrow740 and company. That is the same reason I had been emphasizing that such sick editors..." were a completely inappropriate personal attack. Making these kind of attacks is unacceptable. Please read WP:NPA again and treat this as a final warning: next time you indulge in these kind of comments you will get blocked for a cool-off period. --BozMo talk 19:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this user has had plenty of final warnings for personal attacks. This[4] is not appropriate no matter who you are referring to. 24 hour block. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you continue being uncivil you may find your blocks getting longer in the future. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Poll on every little issue

Please sign if any of these things applies to your understanding of this issue. Please put you name under all of the options you think would be acceptable. You can sign all or none of these, I'm hoping this will give us a more-fine grained understanding of the issue. [5]

Hi VirtualEye, since you are currently blocked, if you like I can post your responses to this poll by proxy. You could tell me which one's you wish to support and I would put your signature and a link back to the diff where you told me which one's you wish to support. Or if you prefer I am sure the poll with still be there tomorrow. It is not my intention to silence you in this debate with this block. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My votes:

Strong no images =YES

Only one image, not at the top =YES

My Comment:

Work is significant and not the appearance. Giving 25% space to an image on the top part of article means that Muhammad's 25% was about appearance, which is totally wrong as all people know here. And even over that, we dont have a factual image but a false image having clashes with the article which is describing the teachings and life of Muhammad, and again, All people know that.

(I hope my above comment is civil)

P.S.

It's very sorrowful that people are being banned on the allegations of being 'incivil' but nobody cares about the 'civil' cunning and systematic campaigns to spread hatered filth in Islam related articles just in the name of NPOV.

I want to ask respected Mr. HighInBC, If the bad intention of a person is visible as daylight, even then we cant call him bad? what kind of incivility is that? I would rather call the Judge to be incivil if he does not let me declare the criminal as 'bad'.

NPOV justifies:

• The opposite factual content even if some people dont like,

NPOV does not justify:

• The baseless filthy content by some ill-willed person.

'No censorship' policy justifies:

• That a factual picture can not be removed even if some people dont like.

'No censorship' policy does not jutify:

• the 'baseless'
• 'unsourced'
• 'without creator/author name'
• 'actually clashing with the article'
• 'clashing with the factual data'

images.

Anyway, I have no hope again, but still I am here, I dont know why. VirtualEye 04:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess to be incivil, make personal attacks, get blocked, create sockpuppets (now User:Towaru), vote-stack, upload ridiculous images and troll? You're not the first user who joined Wikipedia to make a very important point without realizing that such misconduct discredits, not furthers, your cause. If you wish to stay and contribute, you're welcome to do so, but you must follow the rules.Proabivouac 07:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have passed along your support to the two you supported. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks BC. VirtualEye 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac! I think you have seen some horrible nightmare last week. Any wikipedian who disagrees to the POV of you and your army, he is considered a sockpuppet of me?

You will keep thinking like this till every wikipedian dies who has opposite POV to you. Do you really think that nobody can disagree with you?

Keep bringing such usernames and I keep on adding them to my friends list. Thanks for your efforts. VirtualEye 15:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOFEEDING, the both of you -- feb^talk 15:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Your talk page is getting quite long. Would you mind if I archived it for you? This speeds up load times on slower computers, and makes the page easier to navigate. --Hojimachong^talk 05:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks, I have done it. 8-> VirtualEye 16:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You removed the text from this page, and put a thing in the top right corner about there being an archive, but you accidentally forgot to create an archive. Andjam 00:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I intentionally forgot to create archive :). Because I was blocked to create any page. Thanks for your effort. VirtualEye 01:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Book

Completely unrelated to the discussion at Talk:Muhammad, but interesting nonetheless; I found a book I believe may interest you, VirtualEye. It is titled Censored 2007: The Top 25 Censored News Stories of 2007 (ISBN 978-1-58322-738-1), which discusses the censorship of relevant international news by the "oft-ethnocentric" American media. Even though it's a slam on America, I enjoyed it nonetheless (I thought that may be a ringing endorsement ;-)). It reveals and analyzes stories such as the genocide in the DPRC, Halliburton's interests in Iran's nuclear program, and the bombing of a Pakistani village by U.S. warplanes. My favorite part, however, was the side-by-side comparison of two news stories on the same date, and which one recieved more news coverage. Typically, the story about Jessica Simpson's and Nick Lachey's breakup recieved much more coverage than Iraq's general election. Anyways, I thought you might enjoy this book. --Hojimachong^talk 23:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks for recommendation. Its good you are looking out of the American-bubble now. I will try the book if I manage. Usually I have a lot of material to read/watch and post too, and let me tell you that I am not incivil on other forums upon disagreement, as I have to be here. Why? because injustice brings outrage. I hope you are also enlightened someday. VirtualEye 00:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

InBC there?

I am still blocked. I wonder why am I being oppressed by autoblocks. VirtualEye 02:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Autoblocks occur when you log in as another account when you are blocked. I will see if I can find it. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

When you try to edit, you get a block message, copy the {{unblock-auto|...}} code generated for you under the "Autoblocked?" section. I need this information to undo the autoblock. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Other account? The computer I use is not my personal property. So I cant stop people using Wikipedia. VirtualEye 02:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of that, I still need the information I described above to undo the autoblock. This information is kept from me to protect your privacy, but I cannot undo the block without it. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you have the right to block/unblock then you should automatically be titled to see the information. Or please ask some admin. I dont consider it appropriate to publish my info on the page for everyone. I would rather open my info to that admin who is totally considered unbiased. Sorry. VirtualEye 02:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want me to handle this then use the {{unblock}} template. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The information in the autoblock template should indicate which login caused the autoblock. Simply posting this information will let me do it. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As he says, there is nothing to unblock. To undo an autoblock, you will need to use the appropriate information. We do not have the information necessary to undo this without your cooperation. I'm sorry. Kuru ^talk 02:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Recursive block. Here is the reason of autoblock:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "VirtualEye". The reason given for VirtualEye's block is: "personal attacks again: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_n

(edit conflict)

I will try to explain in more detail. Autoblock occur when the IP of a person who is blocked logs into another account. The information is kept from everyone, including admins, because people are allowed to have multiple accounts to ensure privacy if done withing the WP:SOCK policy. The template in the block log can be posted here and the autoblock can be investigated. Otherwise it will just stay.

Basically it is to avoid people running multiple accounts to avoid blocks. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This problem arised last time also, and Mr. Tom Harrison solved it without asking me a single bit. VirtualEye 02:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, if it was that original autoblock, then I can hit that one. Would have thought it would have expired long before now by itself. Try now. Kuru ^talk 02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The autoblock on VirtualEye has expired with your block. You are being effected by another block that has not expired. I even did an unblock on the VirtualEye autoblock, with no result. You are looking for something like this: {{unblock-auto|...}}. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think its working now. Gracious. Danke. Merci beaucoup. Both of you. VirtualEye 02:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Good. I just came back to make sure the block had come off. This problem happens quite often. --BozMo talk 11:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Al-Biruni

regarding this, I was merely pointing out to you that the image has since been attributed to Al-Biruni. From the language of your edit (n-named painting by a creator who's name is not known), I was assuming that you were not yet aware of this. At least the image has a name behind it. --Hojimachong^talk 23:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Evolution. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.Orangemarlin 15:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You might enjoy this

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page friend showed me this, I thought you might get a laugh out of it -- feb^talk 02:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Now I can better compare:

Conservapedia: Organization having the POV to extremely support Chritianity and oppose nonChristian religions.

Wikipedia: Organization having the POV to extremely oppose all the religions so that it can be NPOV for all religions but a POV of Atheists.

Thanks again. VirtualEye 08:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Prophet Muhammad image dispute

I have a suggestion, based on wiki policies of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, to solve the dispute over images of Muhammad.

I have put a template here as to how we should resolve the dispute. Please leave a comment regarding this on my talk page. If you like this template please don't put it up yourself. I am looking for some sort of concensus. If you don't like the template please leave a suggestion for improving it.Bless sins 03:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is no reliable humanoid image avaialbe then only one or two calligraphic images are enough.

Calligraphic images will compete with "humanoid" ones on equal footing. At the end of the competition, the image was which the most scholarly support is found will win. There is no default winner.

Is the poroposed compatible the physical description of Muhammad which has higher notability and credibility than the image srouce?

That will be in the section called "criticism". If you can find a reliable secondary source that criticize the image or a concept in the image, then you can argue against it.

Is the image more notable than the cartoon images of Jylland Posten and Bahomet?

I am not sure what you mean by that.Bless sins 17:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Under the criteria I have set up, Jyllands cartoons will not win the competition for the following reasons.

The criteria is that the image must be representative of:

• the opinion of art scholars/historians (of any religious background) on how the mainstream depict Muhammad, whenever Muhammad is depicted
• the way Islamic tradition has portrayed Muhammad during the 1,400 years of History of Islam

Thus Jyallands posten cartoons were only popular for about a few months, not throughout the better part of the 1,400 years of history of Islam. Also, they do no represent the way Islamic tradition portrays Muhammad.Bless sins 22:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey i dont like the images as much as any other muslim, but there is a wikipedia no censorship policy that is plain and oh so clear. It clearly states that even though some content may offend readers (like me) it has the perfect right to be in wikipedia. Regarding the matters of putting pictures in articles such sa child pornography, it is obviously censored by law. Child porn is illegal but showing pictures of muhammad (pbuh) isn't. Salam. (Ssd175 03:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

Regarding your video

Let's talk about this video for a moment, shall we?

Let's pretend for a minute that the U.S. Military didn't drop leaflets and use loudspeakers to tell citizens to evacuate the city, permitting over 70,000 citizens to leave. That was the justification for shooting the 10-year-old children... because Mujahiddeen sent out 10-year-olds with AK's to shoot at troops. It doesn't really matter how old the kid behind that rifle is; He is shooting at you, and you have no choice but to shoot back.

the remarks about the chemical weapons are the most hypocritical statements' I have ever heard. We don't really have justification to use the weapons, but the fighters there (of whom many were most likely Al-Qaeda and other extremist groups) aren't really in a position to accuse us of disobeying the laws of war. Dressing up as civilians to bomb innocents. Disobeying the cease-fire. Flying airplanes into buildings full of innocent civilians, unprovoked. If the militants in Fallujah aren't going to follow the internationally accepted laws of war (the Geneva Conventions), then they certainly aren't going to recieve much thought over how the U.S. Military is going to defeat them.

I know that the war is unjust, but I definitely will support my troops. They are young, scared kids, and will follow orders given to them. If you want to talk, come to my talk page. --Hojimachong^talk 18:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you come and criticize CNN and SkyNews, and then come and post YouTube videos for me to watch, do you think for one minute I am going to take them seriously?

As for being young "scary" kids, are you to say that the Jihadists in Iraq aren't "scary"? Honestly. I don't see the point of carrying on a conversation with you when you criticize international news media, and direct me to documentaries which leave out any information that disagrees with it (the information can be found in a Google search, rom many websites).

looking through your list of contributions, I was hard-pressed to find an edit that was not reverted within five minutes, or was not blatantly POV. I'm having a hard time realizing why you are here if not to contribute. You've been directed to enough links that you should be able to write great prose for Wikipedia, but you choose to continuously censor, propogandize, and deneutralize good articles. I ask you; Why? Why are you at Wikipedia, VirtualEye? --Hojimachong^talk 15:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You simply cant comprehend my point. There is MORE to the world than your CNN and SKY, that I had been trying to put in your novice head since ages. I dont buy just single sourced media hypocrisy that is why I refered you highly diverse sources of videos made by Americans themselves and not some Muslim wacko.

And about your moaning of my edits. The reason of the reverts of my edits is the same reason due to which wikipedia is highly biased. i.e. very very minor ratio of Muslim wikipedians with respect to the huge number of nonmuslim wikipedians here. How in the world can you claim wikipeida to be NPOV when there are 10001 Christians, Zionists, Jews, Hindus and Atheists at one side of POV about a topic and half a dozen muslim wikipedians defending their POV on other side?

How do I guarantee my edit in an article when there are uncountable people at opposite POV ready revert anytime? If I add some %#$ related to their POV then the will not revert, I guarantee. 0_0

The videos I refered for your benefit. You did not see but decided to come attack me. If you dont like those videos (even you did not watch them) then no need to see and no need to contact me about them. Simply disregard them. I am not begging you to watch them, rest assured. VirtualEye 16:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I am one of the only editors who still engages in conversation with you, trying to have civilized conversation, even though you berate me, send biased videos (not that CNN and Sky are not biased, but your videos certainly are as well), and swear on my userpage.

Come on. If fifty editors interpret a policy/guideline differently than five, chances are that the fifty are correct in their interpretation. I just ask, why do you keep arguing? You're not changing anybody's opinion by shouting and posting YouTube videos.

I want to invite you to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down as we try to understand each other. I also would like your help in standardizing templates on Islam related pages (you can find my current proposal, still in the infantile stages, at User:Hojimachong/Islam-Related Templates). Navigation between pages is sketchy-at-best now, and your input before I release it to the general community would be appreciated. Message me back with your answer; I think your knowledge of Islam would help in deciding the most relevant links. Thanks, --Hojimachong^talk 22:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please refer where did I use incivil language? I think you did not read my complete post with your open eyes. I had told that there are video responses of people to these video I refered. You could watch the POV or the other people who responded to these videos. Any person who even is an American and is a nonMuslim, if disagrees with you then that is a bias? How nice. There are replies to these 'biased' videos you can see those. IF not, then as I said I am not forcing you at gunpoint to learn something. If you dont like my refereces then do give a damn and do your work and dont bother to waste your time in writing on my talk page. VirtualEye 05:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"Dumbshit" [6] isn't a good word to be using when you address other editors. --Hojimachong^talk 05:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"they just dont rely on CNN ans Sky's dumbshit". Well in your civil opinion, CNN and SKY recite some holy scripture while I consider them pathetic. I did not use any incivil word for you in this conversation as far as I remember, nor did I use for other users yet. But anyway, there is no point to debate with you. Because you can only talk on the offtopic subjects, i.e.:

• I am incivil
• I am biased
• I should take tea and sit
• bla bla.....

VirtualEye 05:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Explain to me how those are "off-topic". They pertain directly to the conversations, and the medium through which the conversations are carried. If you can't abide by the rules, you won't be taken seriously. You should know that by now. --Hojimachong^talk 08:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What rules? Am I editing some scholastic article? It was a general conversion on your talk page. Was I discussing some wikipedia article? And as I said, just dont use your tiny brain on my refereces if you are not interested. Save energy. VirtualEye 09:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

...Which constitutes another personal attack. Have you ever considered rephrasing your arguments on talk pages? Your hostility turns the community against you, and it would be a lot easier to edit if you rephrased a little to be less indignant. --Hojimachong^talk 17:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait; Put CNN, SkyNews, and everthing else aside for a minute. Are you suggesting that the videos you referred me to are not biased? You can put whatever long-winded answer you want here, but respond on my talk page with either "Yes ~~~~" or "No ~~~~". --Hojimachong^talk 23:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No, these videos are not biased but are the symbol of reaction about cruelty and hypocrisy, the reactions might be exaggerated and aggressive but that does not mean you trash them with your broom of 'wikipedia rules'. Looks like someone got a hysteria for 'NPOV'. I had already told you that these videos do NOT have anything to do about some specific wikipedia article, so dont apply POV/NPOV obsession on that. If you want only wikipedia articles discussed on your talk, then in that case I have requested you to diregard the videos I refered and excuse me that I wrote something on your page which was not related to wikipedia articles. ok? still not happy?

I am rude, angry and stupid person and you are respectful decent polite genius schoolkid... Happy now?

Arrogance never pays.

VirtualEye 08:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

First, the "broom" of Wikipedia rules applies everywhere on Wikipedia. You can't edit here if you aren't going to follow the rules, that is pretty obvious.

Second, if these videos you refer to are "not biased" in your opinion, then CNN and SkyNews are "not biased" in my opinion. In thise case, CNN and SkyNews win, because of their verifiability. Wikipedia doesn't care if God himself made a video; if it was on YouTube or Google video, it would not ever be as notable or verifiable as an international corporation, whose only job is to report facts.

Third, regardless of the personal attacks you continue to throw at me ("you are respectful decent polite genius schoolkid" in a sarcastic tone), I have never called you rude, angry, or stupid. Ever. Because it's pretty obvious that you aren't any of those. --Hojimachong^talk 08:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

>>First, the "broom" of Wikipedia rules applies everywhere on Wikipedia.

OK, Those videos do not belong to wikipedia. Game Over. Thanks for your time. VirtualEye 14:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to discuss the issues further, if you don't mind. I'm not going to walk away from this that easily. --Hojimachong^talk 18:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

>> the "broom" of Wikipedia rules applies everywhere on Wikipedia.

So discussion can only be related to wikipedia articles. For the moment I dont have any wikipedia content to discuss with you. Those videos do NOT belong to wikipedia.

I think you are confusing yourself. Sometimes you say wikipedia rules apply then at the same time you ask me talk about the things which are not related to wikipedia. Either apply wikipedia rules and discard the videos or accept that you cant apply wikipedia rules on this non-wikipedian content. There is not third way. Again, I did not come to you to discuss wikipedia articles or about the rules. So please keep sleeping in the nights and do not bother if you wanted to apply wikipedia rules about videos discussion. VirtualEye 18:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Then what did you come for? --Hojimachong^talk 19:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I came for personal discussion not about wikipedia. So I did a mistake by sending video references which are not related to wikipedia articles. So I asked for an excuse and asked you to disregard the those videos. UNDERSTOOD? I think you are really pissed off by your school teacher. You are very efficient in picking my words but you dont understand a single point I had been saying. Still did not understand? JUST DISREGARD THE NON RELEVANT VIDEO REFERENCES AND EXCUSE ME.

The problem in wikipedia is that I cant call a person stupid even if he is one of the dumbest persons I ever met. And this is just because I am judged as incivil.

VirtualEye 02:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would indeed qualify as incivility.Proabivouac 06:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets, trolling

VirtualEye, re User:Towaru, User:60.52.92.234...please stop.Proabivouac 06:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And 60.52.18.34, 60.52.46.24, 60.52.87.230, User:Jesus Fan, User:Checkmeout101. --Hojimachong^talk 06:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The fourth line of your algorithm is very funny. Arrow740 06:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Obscene and Personal Attack

You wrote this on ALM's user page. This is both obscene and a personal attack. Please remove this ASAP. NN 23:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

When User:Nayan Nev said "Please remove this ASAP", I don't think it was meant that you should remove this message, but rather the insulting and crude message you left on ALM's page. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, HighInBC thanks! NN 02:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If that was insult then what is the point to quote all of it again on my page? A link was enough or few words. Removing the statement from ALM's page has same reason for which I removed from my page.

No matter I have different POV as compared to Hojimachong and Pro, and I am a bit direct and harsh but that does not mean people start making evil coallition against me. Now you would object I am not having good faith. How in world should I assume other people at good faith if they are spreading disinformation about me on every other user's page and trashing every opposite opinion of different users by calling them 'VirtualEye'.

Over that this kid Hojimachong does not have a tiny respect. He is now apologzing other user Twaru and again the justification is that I am evil so he had to assume other people to be my sockpuppets. InBC !! I still dont expect any fair decision from you. I appreciate that I was being tolerated a bit for my direct tone, but that does not mean my every opinion is trashed. Harshness and evil intention are two different things. You cant simply expect every person to do left right left right according to your expectations. There can be direct tones, indirect, honest and dishonest, Depending upon the knowledge and nature of person. So I got the severe reaction upon the highly biased teaming against Muslims here. One example you know already, i.e. Arrow740 AKA FFI Agent.

VirtualEye 02:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Following policy, I'll notify you that I have opened up a SUSPSOCK at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VirtualEye. It's getting old, and needs to be decided once and for all. I won't comment on the rest of your comment, ATM. --Hojimachong^talk 02:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

VirtualEye, I am not interested in your excuses. The attack IS personal and obscene, and not allowed according to Wiki policy. That is all I care about. You need to remove it ASAP. NN 02:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

He did remove it[7], I failed to check, I have replaced the example with a link. Sorry for my misunderstanding. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize, no fault of yours. Thanks, NN 02:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Trinity

Hi Virtual Eye,

Are you sure the modern Bible's have the word trinity? I haven't been able to find any. So, if you don't mind I have reverted your edit. --Aminz 08:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. VirtualEye 12:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Answering-Christianity.com

I know I may be beating a dead horse here, but in case you haven't already been pointed in this direction, here is the MOS:ISLAM guideline which specifically states that Answering-Christianty.com is not an appropriate source. --Hojimachong^talk 20:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Maome2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Maome2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Boycott Campaign

I thought you might be interested in this template since you expressed support for boycotting Wikipedia on my sub-userpage. --LatinoMuslim 15:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

{{User:LatinoMuslim/WikipediaBoycott}} User:LatinoMuslim/WikipediaBoycott

AfD nomination of Islamic terrorism

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Islamic terrorism. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)