User talk:Anonymous editor/Archive 4

This archive has mostly material related to my Rfa, along with several barnstars and awards that were awarded to me.

How do you guys revert changes . Is it just a one click function , or do I have to copy each & every thing from history to present . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 03:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We're on top of it; we've been monitoring, reverting, and blocking SuperTroll all afternoon. To get our attention, the easiest thing to do is join #wikipedia-en-vandalism, but if you aren't an IRC user, you can post to one of our talk pages and we'll get the message through. (Mine is a good place, as a lot of the CVU'ers watch my page.) -- Essjay · Talk 19:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's not even just that the stuff being added by user: Rfcom is PoV, but also that the article dosn't need to be that long about one incedent. I talked to Rfcom about this but I don't know if he will listen. So can you plz keep an eye on it too? Thx --Madhev0 20:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will watch the article also. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anonymous editor,

Regarding Westerners, I can't find any official source. Anyway, about cinemas, they do exist, so I removed the part where it says they don't. If you need more sources, you can check these links: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4356892.stm, http://www.guardian.co.uk/saudi/story/0,11599,1595364,00.html, http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Saudi%20Arabia/190451. I guess Wahhabis are finally losing influence, hopefully. -- Eagle^amn 03:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, first of all, I usually edit without influence from my affiliation, religious or otherwise. I'm not a Sunni Saudi BTW, but that doesn't mean I'm just being biased against Wahhabis. If I am by mistake, please let me know. Regards. -- Eagle^amn 03:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Christian Saudi? Is there such a thing? I heard about atheist Saudis, but not Christian. Anyway, I am Muslim (even though people who talk to me for the first time usually think I'm atheist, I think because of my "NPOV" regarding many issues), but I really am a Shi'a Muslim. I know many Sunni Saudis personally, even though I might have a "problem" with Wahhabis, but definitely not all Sunnis. All in all, I try to keep all that away from here. -- Eagle^amn 03:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry! have sent the message to Silence. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AE. Replied. -- Svest 03:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You really do great work for the Wiki, have a barnstar:

Take care, V/M
19:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get tricked by the prank? V/M
19:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to do it. V/M !
01:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw what you did on the Pakistan page. It looks like it took a lot of time. So I'm also givin you a barnstar for ur work. Here you go

I think this is the right one. :) Are you interested in India articles too?--Madhev0 19:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help at Useful idiot. Please help me out at John Kerry or Stolen Honor if you can. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked him for three hours. If he continues, notify me, and I'll block him for a longer period. freestylefrappe 00:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The pleasure is all mine. I had the chance to read articles that you have participated in improving, and I like it, obviously you are a good contributor, where it really matters (improving and/or writting good quality articles). I just hope that you will still have time contributing and improving articles with your new powers and won't restrict yourself on fighting vandalism. Regards. Fadix 01:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why did you remove that image from the hajj page? I am pretty sure that Feb. 13, 2003 wasn during hajj... just want to hear your reasoning since you had put it up first too. Thanks. gren グレン 07:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that was the image I was talking about. I had tried see see what the date would be and it seemed reasonable that Feb. 13 was hajj in 2003 (since it moves forwards about ten days each year just like Ramadan, no?). So, my thought was that it was hajj -- I also don't know how many people come daily if it is not hajj. gren グレン 13:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. I will say that you are a very polite editor, I appreciate that a great deal. I have seen you answer and am satisfied with it. However, I still believe that you ought not to get too heavily invloved in some of the more controversial subjects, but, its none of my business. I will see how things play out at your rfa and may change my vote. Cheers Banes 11:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it disgusts me when people vote on their bias and not on the edits. I admire your coolheadedness in this matter, but I am still unsure about your suitability as an admin. Anyway, I will see what happens, if I dont see any compelling evidence from a reliable source, I may change and vote support. I dont want to flip flop though. So time will tell. Good luck with your endevours on wikipedia and in the real world. All the best Banes 11:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, before I go, can you provide for me a link to Klonimus's post elsewhere, rallying for oppose votes. As this behavior is totally unacceptable. Thanks Banes 11:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I voted "no" because I generally oppose expanding the number of admins except in very special cases. This is because there are too many admins already and many of the current admins are some of the most edit & revert war-prone editors on wikipedia. Because of that about the only people I'll support for admin are ones that have proven histories of very strict neutrality and a hands-off pro-consensus "moderator" type approach to editing. With all that in mind, I noticed that many of the comments on your nomination indicated you've been in many revert wars in the past. While I'm not in a position to judge whether you were justified or not in these disputes, they're just not something I'm looking for in an administrator. Also, please don't take this as anything personal - it's just my philosophy of what i'm looking for in administrators. Rangerdude 19:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond here too. The pro-Islamic and anti-Indian POV edits you have made, along with the 3RR violation make me very weary of trusting you with the tools. Sorry, I think you're a nice guy, but your edits don't show to me that you would make a good admin. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a time when my voice will also be heard, I to shall add a comment here. We haven't interacted enough, so I have no intention of voting for or against. Being from this side of the border I can understand the PoV issues, but I was not too impressed with our only interaction - Your comment, change, and my reply.

The things that you questioned about were easily lookup-able from a source listed near the top of the references, and this site was arguably the most authentic and neutral among them. My impression was that you changed it for the sake of doing so, and took no trouble to read through the references. Anyway, hope things are better now. Tintin 21:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure; the hostile opposition by anti-Islamic PoVpushers like Klonimus are more of a recommendation than anything else (the odd view expressed above that the mere fact of conflict makes you unworthy would suggest that we need admins who carefully avoid articles that involve conflict, or who have no backbone when it comes to defending NPoV and Wikipedia), but I've also seen enough of your editing and behaviour to know that you'd make a good and valuable admin. Good luck! --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My opposition is based primarily on my assesment that your edits (those which I have read) do not convince me that you appreciate and embrace Wikipedia:Negotiation or Consensus decision making. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this [1] just an example of something that bothers me. I went through a somewhat similar situation(see Talk:Ted_Kennedy/Archive_5). In spite of near-trolling and disregard for consenses and revoving IPs to circumvent 3RR, I didn't violate 3RR myself. I did get other edits to watchlist though.

When 6+ different people revert the vandal, all he can say is "Wikipedia is ALL baised" which just looks silly and lends him no credibility. Don't feed the Troll remarks should only be made after the troll disregards consensus and attacks a page for several days.

The events inserted into the article to not seem to represent trolling(altough his edit summaries eventually turned into WP:NPA) so you should not have reverted past 3RR like that. Such disputes are for talk pages. If you become an admin, will you just "win" by rolling others back?

Also, this did actually happen as well[2] altough the "backlash" section seems to be POV. The of all this is that you need to talk before ingaging in edit wars, especially over contraversial topics, especially when the reverts are due to conflicting perceptions of POV.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 22:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I remeber my first edits showed severe inexperience. Someone wrote something like "Bush didn't get the popular vote, so isn't saying that "he won" pretty much false". I deleted it and put "trolling by removed". He then deleted my statement and put "trolling by Voice of All removed"!. We edit warred on the talk page and another user commented that this is useless.

That was my first day, and I took the troll bait completly.

So I can understand how much of a difference experience can make. You also said that once it was cited, you didn't mind it.

So I might change my vote to Neutral. If you can show a good amount of AfD and cleanup/editing work, I might support...Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 22:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about the anti-Indian edits that GreyAsche was talking about?Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 22:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing remaining in order for me to vote support is that you will promise to help close AfDs. I almost get overwhelmed with all of those, we need some help; not enough admins work on the AfDs. You might want to post some of your responses to my vote on your RfA, so you don't have to keep explaining. I am gald that you challenged the reasoning of my vote, you would not be a good admin if you didn't stand up somtimes:).Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 23:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote to support. Now your RfA has exactly 2/3 majority. 60% or 66% is usually a rough concenses in a normal situation, so I think that two-fold single vote change puts you over the water.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 23:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, remind me to close some more, I've only done 9 or 10 this month. No worries about the sneakyness thing, you seem cool to me, but others might get the wrong impression from the name. Karmafist 00:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that adminship should be a popularity contest. Someone can be a good editor and an estimable person and still lack the qualities needed to be a good admin.

I've been approached to be an admin three times, I think, and I've always turned down the nomination because I see in myself the same problems I saw in you. Could be that I'm projecting <g>. I hope that we both develop the endless patience and good temper needed to be a top-notch admin. (I think my ideal is Mustafaa.) It's a spiritual quest. Zora 00:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the discussion going on at your RFA, and my patience with OceanSplash has just about ran out. Slim seems to shrug it off, but some of his comments make me seriously doubt his sincerity in editing wikipedia. If he personally attacks anyone else I'm blocking him for 24 hours. Feel free to notify me if you see it first. freestylefrappe 01:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked him for 24 hours. Icairns blocked 210.193.223.65 (the anon who was vandalizing History of Islam) for a week. freestylefrappe 01:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, I do hope to work w/ u more constructively in future. U r a nice guy Anon. Cheers --Deepak|वार्ता 03:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to lend my support. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. The most interaction we've had is a minor edit war on Hamas, but I'd love to work with you some more. Hooray for Anon! --Sean Black ^Talk 03:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing; I changed my vote to Neutral when I saw that OceanSplash's motives were less than altruistic. I will probably change to Support later, after I've taken a better look at your contributions. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 03:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. I wish you the best in your adminship. -- Eagle^amn 04:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've been having a hard time knowing how to vote on this. I think you're pretty much a good user... sometimes I think you do act too "pro-Islamic" in some cases but I do understand to a certain degree. I also tend to think that six months is a good amount of time to be around wikipedia before being an admin, but that's just my basic standard, not gospel. To an extent I am worried because you seem to take "POV vandalism" as vandalism. That is, there are definitely some additions that are not good and should be removed... but they are not vandalism per se and therefore can't be treated as such. Which of course can be frustrating but, I suppose it might be for the better even in the face of being called an Islamist and other silly things. Overall you're a good editor even though I tend to see you more in the "Islamic camp" than the fully neutral camp but you aren't as bad as some of your counter-parts on the other side -- that's for sure, and you keep the name calling to a minimum. Complaining about the 3RR thing doesn't really matter at this point since it was so long ago when you were new. But, I just want to let you know that I have some misgiving... mostly about time and then about how I sometimes think you are too quick to call vandalism or sockpuppet when the material is POV... and I think you're a little more Islam POV than neutral... but, not too bad. I don't want to neglect all of the great work you've done because I do appreciate that and your willingness to talk in so many cases. Maybe I'm wrong but I think you get overly excited sometimes. Most importantly (to me) is the policy of, "[a]dmins must not protect pages they are engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism". To me this goes into reverting and blocking editors, etc. I have in my RfA made it clear that I am not going to be policing the Islam-related pages as an admin. I may do some work there but we must keep our editing in that capacity separate from our role as admin. I am currently between neutral and support. I wouldn't oppose you since if anything I think you need more time to prove yourself. You've proved to be a good editor in general but there are some areas of contention. I just want your response and how you plan to edit (as admin) around pages that you are involved in controversy. I would think that using the revert function (unless it's simple vandalism) would not always be the best idea and partisan protecting of pages would be bad... I want you to comment on this to me. Also ask me any questions about my view. I have some of the same issues with you that Zora does, and in fact I expected her to be closer to the dilemma I'm in than oppose... in any case, comments and questions would be nice. Sorry to see that the vote is getting contentious, especially that whole thing about being an Islamist ~_~. Yeah, we don't really need that kind of thing on RfAs :-/ gren グレン 08:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gren, I have no intentions of abusing the revert button. You know that I am strict but fair. I am willing to relax and become more tolerant against particular constant pov pushers. Furthermore, yeah the comments by some of the particular pov pushers kind of shows you that my stance was probably effective against them. I am also willing to relax my vandalism criteria, although it really has gotton relaxed in past weeks. :) I hope you will trust me to carry this trend. Thank you very much, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 10:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just to get this all written in an official-ish area I am going to ask you a question (#4) on your admin page about you and your stance on adminning Islam-related controversial articles. I think other users might want to see the same thing. Kind of like my answer in question three on my RfA. Does that sound good and you can answer? gren グレン 10:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What will the question be? Can you give it later because I will be unable to answer it right now (going somewhere)? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 10:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4. There has been some concern about your editting of controversial (Islam, etc.-related) articles. How do you plan on using (or not using) your admin capabilities on these articles? Wikipedia:Protected page states, "[d]o not protect a page on which you are involved in an edit dispute". How do you interpret that and apply that concept to other admin powers such as reverting, blocking users, etc. (asked by gren グレン)

You have my permission to paste that (or simple style/non-meaning modification to it) to your RfA whenever you want. Just point them here to show that I gave permision. So, answer at your leisure. gren グレン 10:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick fix, I would remove Pakistan from there. The reason is that my edits to Pakistan or military of Pakistan articles (the only Pakistani ones I edit) are not disputed; only ones to the disputed territory of Kashmir. In those, there were only two or three disputes and they have been solved now and I pretty much just fix charts, grammar and revert vandalism on those articles. Aside from that I would be happy to answer your question. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 10:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "Islam, etc." above. Whenever you can answer do. gren グレン 10:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anonymous one,

I'm not sure why you deleted the reference to God in Aramaic ("Alaha") from the Islam article, but -- presuming that it was intended in good faith on your part -- permit me to explain. Aramaic is an ancient language, developed from Phoenician, and is a root to both Hebrew and Arabic. Of particular note, it was the lingua franca during the era of Jesus, and was inarguably the language that he used when speaking to the masses. Perhaps based on anti-Semitic grounds, perhaps not, some claim that he may have used Koine Greek/Hebrew when speaking in the temples, but even this is much disputed.

In any case, as I'm sure you are aware, Jesus is considered to be a major prophet within Islam. Notably, how Jesus would have pronounced "God" in Aramaic -- "Alaha" -- is highly germane to the Islam article.

All too often, I've read unlearned commentary from some anti-Islamic "Christian" who opposes the idea of God being called by the name "Allah". As I've just shown, the fact is that Jesus himself both spoke and prayed to the One God as "Alaha," thus refuting such unerudite nonsense.

Kind Regards, --AustinKnight 21:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fully know what Aramaic is my friend. :) But I don't think we need to reiterate aramaic "Allaha" in all other articles with Allah in them. That is already written in the main Allah article. Writing Allah in every way possible won't make sense. If people desire to learn who Allah is and other prononciations, they will go to the main article. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that you "fully" know what Aramaic is. But you are going substantially out of your way to miss my point, which I thought was quite clear, but I will clarify and reiterate:

• No, we do not need to write "Allah" in every possible way. No one is requesting that, and it doesn't frankly make sense that somehow you (mis)read that into my intent.
• No, we do not need to write "Allaha" in all other articles with Allah in them. No one is requesting that either.
• Yes, we should and do need to show this major point of agreement between Christianity and Islam in the introduction.

You seem to be overly defensive and reactive, to the point of deliberately misreading clear and good faith intentions. Please allow for the possibility that you need to be more flexible in your thinking, as clearly you went down some paths in your thoughts that had nothing to do with the change to the article...which others have embraced and improved in a very Wiki-social fashion. --AustinKnight 03:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I sounded overly defensive :), that was not my intent. I really do understand your point, but I still stick by my initial point that it only needs to be mentioned on the main article and I am sure that the main article displays this point of agreement. Thank you. Oh, what changes do you want then? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fully sure if I understand your comment at RFM. Are you recommending we do mediation or saying we shouldn't? And if neither was your intent which would you prefer anyway? Redwolf24 (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your original message: Look Klonimus, I had nothing against you personally, but since this rfa began, you have started to gather people to vote against me in bad faith. Much of what you do I interpret as POV too, especially these personal attacks against BYT or other Muslim editors. I barely have ever contacted you or even met you, so it seems highly odd that you would go to such lengths to try this and exaggerate this bias towards me. However, I am assuming good faith over the part of your last message that was not personal attack and I would like to hope that we can get along whenever we meet later in the future. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stay angry if you like

You yourself have been doing alot of work to draw attention to your RfA. You can hardly complain if anyone else draws attention to your RfA. Unless you are a hypocrite. Are you? And if you can't handle this process with maturity, can you really be trusted as an admin? I don't think so.

Your instantanious deletion of my message to you, is also a sign of immaturity. Again, I urge you to stop thinking of yourself as a poor persecuted person, and instead think about what it is about yourself and your own actions that inspires so much resentment. None of this happened out of thin air. Klonimus 04:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not angry at anyone nor do I feel persecuted. I just don't understand your actions. I understand why others may have concerns but you have done nothing but escalate that and invite people to vote against and have a bias against me to begin with. I haven't even met many of these people before. Like I said, I would like to hope that we can get along whenever we meet later in the future.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I checked them out and consider them to be not exactly fair play. Therefore, I've decided to remove my vote from the rfa altogether. I'm not ready to support yet, but I simply cannot oppse after this. Cheers Banes 05:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just got sick of the conflict over there. Anyway, thanks for all the trouble you've been to and for keeping a cool head. Good luck. Banes 05:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I thought it over, and I've discovered now that the only reason I'm not voting support now is because my pov isnt the same as yours. I expect better from others. Therefore, since you've made a very good impression om me, I will go ahead and vote support. It looks as though it'll be rather close still. All the best Banes 17:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, There was so much written that it was very hard for someone who had not been involved to work out what had really been going on. In a few months of quiet editing it should be much easier to reach some balance and I'd certainly hope to be able to support then. Many of the areas in which you have been editing are very emotive ones and it is naturally difficult for people to reach NPOV conclusions. Dlyons493 Talk 19:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey anonym, I just came over to give you this award and thank you in your never ending struggle against the POV pushers. Keep up the good work! Karmafist 20:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly welcome for the support on RfA. I hope you become an administrator - you definitely deserve it. If you ever need anything, feel free to let me know.  :-) --Randy 20:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told, anonym, I am strongly anti-"anti-Muslim" (in the sense that I recognize WP needs to work to correct a probable systemic bias in favor of Western Christianity, and I see editors who decry "Islamophilia" here as bit... er, wrong), and I've learned to question some of the editors who voted against you. So, in a few weeks even, barring new problems, I'm sure I'll be a firm strong supporter, and I note you've got praise from good folks on your talk page. :) Recent "Ignore All Rules" controversy just makes me extra-sensitive about admin promotions right now. Xoloz 21:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to lend support. Remember to thank SlimVirgin for pointing your nomination out to me. Anyone who wants to dive headlong into what are currently "hot button" topics and do so in the spirit of the project is OK by me. Good luck! - Lucky 6.9 21:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drumming up votes! Shocking! ^_^ Hve you looked over my admin votes? I think I'm running about 6/2 oppose right now. I haven't leant my support yet, I'm always careful and go over contributions pretty throughly. That being said, SV's words alone makes me fairly certain what I'll find. More generally, there are two possibilities: either the BCs will discount some of the votes against you as obvious bad faith, or they won't. I think that it will be tough at this stage for you to pass the bar if they don't, it's just down to numbers and getting an extra twelve (eleven?) "supports" may be tough. Regardless, there is not much question that another run in six weeks would be successful.
brenneman^(t)(c) 01:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, isn't that admin cliché number 2? No, not an admin, but what I meant was that I generally "oppose" nominations. However, if I did have a RfA right now it would probably run at about that rate. Although I've generally been an even-keeled contributor and tried to calm the waters, I've had a few lapses of late that would probably doom me.
• I'm looking over your contributions now, and I'm going to add some questions to the bottom.
  brenneman^(t)(c) 01:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're quite welcome. I wish you the very best in your nomination. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 21:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voted for you. Good luck! TheProphetess 00:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my concern is more what I wrote in my original comment. The campaigning note I added as an afterthought once I saw it on my watchlist and checked your contribs again. I don't think it's entirely reasonable to claim that your messages were exactly neutral. Even though I opposed (on different grounds to most), I do think you are being unfairly hauled over the coals. It's part of the nature of RfA but there is fairly clearly some POV-pushing afoot. It worries me when this happens on an RfA: if we scare all our editors into never editing controversial areas for fear they may never be able to contribute as an admin, we will eventually leave those articles to the most righteously indignant and those incapable of writing encyclopedically. Still, I do think you might float around Wikipedia: space a little more. -Splash^talk 02:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the congrats. I was just curious if you were going to add that question or if you thought I should? I mean, I figure it might be a good sign to acknowledge your a part of the debate on certain pages and won't use admin to influence it. That was just my feeling. I'm sorry to say that it seems on your RfA things aren't going well... and I hope it's not because some of the stuff that I think is inflated. Anyways, I do think it was a premature nomination, but I kind of think six months at least, but, just keep doing a good job on the things you do... people appreciate it, and I've appreciated your input many times... much more than the few times we've had our disagreements. Unless of course you're really a monster everywhere else :D I do wonder how much saying you're a Muslim does to influence things, as in, if I editted the same way but said I was a Muslim how would my vote have gone. We really can't tell I suppose but... anyways, good luck and thanks again. gren グレン 23:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome from me. Good luck! I have full confidence in you. Antandrus (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering. gren グレン 02:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gee Sam, you are supposed to be a friendly user! Lol. Just kidding. :) I appreciate your vote, but if you think my "campaigning" for votes was wrong, it was because of this reason. A couple of users voting oppose were rallying support against me. See the following: [3], [4], [5] [6][7][8][9] [10] (+ there are even more). I didn't think that was fair. Btw, I simply asked all the users I have had contact with before, and I just asked them to vote, not necessarily support. Thank you for your concern. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing inherently wrong w campaigning, particularly when it is general, rather than selective, in nature. Yours gave me a clear impression that you were seeking a particular partisan voting bloc. As far as opposition campaigning, there is a precedent against that, I used informations regarding such an incident in one of my many successful cases before the ArbCom. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IZAK.So that you know, I don't rule out voting for you in the future, if you improve the bad impression the current RfA gave. I am certain I am not alone in that regard. You may want to consider a new user name and a fresh start. Sam Spade 03:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope I wasn't selecting a particular voting bloc, just all the editors I know and some I have seen around. Aside from that I had only good faith, no bad intents. I don't think I can improve the bad impression Sam. There are just some voters who will do this and I can't change who they are. I have changed a lot since I first started editing here, but unfortunately there are people out there who don't want to change. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can relate. Some of the support voters are among my most unreasonable opposition. I assure you however that everyone changes, and that I make no judgement regarding you as a person, but only regarding the small bit of information I have seen regarding you. If you are confident you are being unfairly persecuted by unreasonable persons, it should be easy enough for you as an anonymous editor to create a new account and a fresh start, thereby leaving all that baggage behind you. Sam Spade 03:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for the advice. However, I don't want to lose the reputation I have with good editors simply because some of the opposition is acting in bad faith. Thank you for the advice though and just wondering, why "strong oppose"? Now that you have seen both sides of the story. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find the situation disturbing and creepy, and feel strongly this is not the time or manner in which a promotion should occur. Sam Spade 13:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey. That went a bit south in a hurry, didn't it? Even if some of the initial opposes are discounted, you'd now require close to the record number of supports that any admin has ever recieved to pass the 80% mark. On the plus side, you've now received some positive, actionable feedback from people for whom I have a lot of respect. Were I you, I'd craft a nice withdrawal statement where you indicate that you'll widen the scope of your activities, apologise for any offense given by campaigning, and ask that a reputable admin mentor you over the next month. Of course, another fifty odd supports could come floating in...
brenneman^(t)(c) 05:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Without any offense, perhaps a little more experiance in policy space wouldn't hurt. The standard is a (poorly defined but in pracitice well set) minumum of 75%, and over 80% is expected. It does say that on the RfA page at the top! ^_^
I'd think about taking that advice above soon, too. If a BC decides it is hopeless, or causing too much disruption, they can close it early and you don't get a chance to back out gracefully. Talk to Slim first maybe, I could be reading this whole thing wrong!
brenneman^(t)(c) 11:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaron, we're talking about it, and AE's being remarkably gracious. I think he'll emerge from this with the respect of a lot of good editors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome, a.n.o.n.y.m., If you normally edited articles on flower varieties, you would be a shoe-in. ; ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I think Wikipedia needs a variety of opinion, and I find the anti-Muslim comments on the RfA most disturbing. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that. I think the Muslim articles get a fair bit of vandalism, and would benefit from an interested admin keeping a closer eye on them. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped you a line on email. Normally I would wait to see how long it takes for a response, but thought I'd give you a heads up this time. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think it was probably best to withdraw at this time. For the record, I would have been changing my vote from neutral to support and fully expect to support the next time round. Please let me know when you decide to reapply - I would be happy to nominate you myself after a couple of quiet months. Regards, Dlyons493 Talk 18:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you recall, we had an earlier discussion where you claimed that Christianity and Islam are the same religion, that Allah and Christianity's Jehovah are one. I would just like to point out: Muhammed said, "Allah would not take unto himself any son!" In other words, Muslims do not believe that God has a son. Well, Christians do. Muslims believe that Jesus was just a prophet, but we Christians believe that He is God's Son, and that He is God. That makes a world of difference between these two religions. Scorpionman 19:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that at all. I said that there is one God and this belief is shared by both religions. The fact that God has no son in Islamic belief and christianity does is the major difference and I would never say that both religions are the same now (however they were orginally). This is a very common fact, not one that needs to be pointed out. It is just like apples are red and oranges are orange. Thanks. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also Scorpionman see my site [11]. BrandonYusufToropov 20:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. What better resource for this than Brandon's site. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Just wanted to extend my deepest apologies that the RFA kinda, er, sucked. Please try again in a couple of months, and let me know when you do, so I can Support!--Sean Black | Talk 22:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I share the same sentiments that Sean express in his first line, though if I voted it would have been oppose (re. the reference issue). It was pathetic to see some of the opposition stoop to that level. Tintin 22:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It devalues the whole thing to oppose because you don't know what NPOV means. Just keep up the good work, and note that a few of the Opposers had valid points, which can be addressed. That should make the next one (I might just nominate you myself!) much easier.--Sean Black | Talk 22:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FYI I'd like to give you a clean slate for your next nomination. That would be hard considering your edits such as this. I voiced my concerns at Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Whitewash? Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I understand what you mean, but instead of reverting all my efforts to clean up this article, is it possible to just move the allegations to the article. As for whitewash, please don't speculate. I was one of the first one's who edited this article, created the criticism section and the allegations section. There is no reason to always assume bad faith Humus, you always do that for some reason. See Wikipedia: Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility Btw, I didn't remove Nasrallah's Hezbollah picture, it was still there; infact I moved it up. Look closer. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 10:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it went down like that. The only thing that wasn't disheartening about that RfA was the dignity with which you handled yourself. Please let me know the next time you go up. Chick Bowen 15:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've seen your edits around from time to time but never came across you personally so to speak - just wanted to say that I'm sorry I wasn't aware of your RfA, and doubly sorry that it turned into such a disgraceful display. Ya rabb... All the best, Palmiro | Talk 17:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think otherwise and I insist that my last comment should stay. However I will accept that we continue the discussions on the talkpage from now on, in order to avoid making the page too long and hard for voters to edit. -- Karl Meier 21:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[[12]]

Listen deepak, the material added by you completely removes the subject away from the simple definition the paragraph had before and makes it very redundant (mentioning 1989 more than once). I only reverted intro paragraph edits before by reddi before to make it back into a version which was agreed upon. Now the paragraph has become nothing but an attempt to bold terms and not give a clear definition of the issue. I even compromised and added a bolded statement of yours to the intro.

But you still reverted. A definition of insurgency does not need to be in the article and this revert seems unnecessary. There are pages on wikipedia which have dozens of redirects to them, but that does not mean that each definition of every term that redirects needs to be given. Whatever the title is, is the main intro subject of the article, including the only bolded term. Hope you understand. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that the way you worded the paragraph makes it sound like the only people ever killed are by the insurgency; you and I know that's not true and the way you phrased it is pov. We have been through this before. Please clarify what exactly you find wrong with the paragraph before reverting again. I will be happy to discuss this with you. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. I get your point. All I wanted was a brief description of the term Kashmiri insurgency in the intro para since Kashmiri insurgency redirects to Terrorism in Kashmir. --Deepak|वार्ता 04:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that formatting is fine with me. Babajobu 14:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

go ahead with the renaming --Vyzasatya 22:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt it better to have a template that is more accurate? Sorry for not asking everyone first, assumed everyone would agree that the new one for the "Five pilars" and "Roots & branches" articles are better... --Striver 00:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I just realized that :/

Did what you proposed in the Muslim Guild talk page. Ma salam! --Striver 01:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, im leaving things as they are, i gues i have made a good start with the template, and the rest can be finnished with ease by the rest of us.... that is, unless "Somebody" donst manage to delete it all as "shia centric non-sense".... *sight*... --Striver 01:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really, it wasnt more than i usualy do every day... How do you think i managed to make Sahaba's ancestors all on my own? That took some hard research! I made the template from template:muslim scholars in like 10 minutes... --Striver 01:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gues "someone" dont agree and thinks its a "abomination"... random... totaly random... --Striver 01:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

user talk:Anonymous editor/Ahmadiyya Movement - Discussion archived since it is so huge'

I appreciate your effort to keep this article balanced. About the following: "Ahmadinejad has chosen the most educated government of Iran compared to the previous presidents." Do you have any statistic or a source to back this up? If not, I think it should be reworded as a perception of his supporters, instead of as fact.--Brian Z 16:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Brian. I didn't insert that statement, I just reverted the unexplained removal of it by an anonymous IP. Aside from that, I somewhat agree with the statement because Ahmedinejad is well-educated, far more than previous presidents. But like I said, I didn't insert it. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you meant the government itself. Well I think that would require some research although it is fairly known that Ahmedinejad looked over the past education for positions in his cabinet. I will see what I can find, but I wouldn't exactly mind rewording it slightly. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Idleguy keeps on deleting terrorism when the victims are Ahmadi. After several reverts - somehow the reference to Kashmir also disappeared from the introduction. freestylefrappe 01:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts in Pakistan is confusing. That line is not sourced properly. As someone with knowledge on the subcontinent history will tell you there has been NO exact number specified and rightly so for they are hard to come by. The numbers vary from 250,000 as mentioned by some neutral estimates all the way to millions. The British put it initially at 1 million while India and Pakistan put it at 2 million. A few Pakistani and Indian authors say the death toll was as high as 5 million. The exact demographics of the people killed is not known and any historian talking on this only quotes that an equal number of people (mainly hindus, muslims and a small proportion of sikhs) were killed. Infact it was the darkest moment and statistics on the number of people dying were not given a priority back then. So I don't know how anyone can arrive at the precise 1.4 million figure which you are interested in showing? A mention of 1 million is accepted by both India, Pakistan (and to some extent even Britain). And that's still an estimate, not the accurate figure and no, it does not specify if there were a large number of muslim/hindu/sikh deaths. I hope you understand. Tx Idleguy 04:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Then there should be no problem in saying estimated 1 to 5 million Muslims, Hindus etc. Btw, I do have knowledge on subcontinent history, after all I have taught classes about it; being from the subcontinent makes no difference. Also I only did one revert, the other was a grammar edit. And obviously not an equal number of each ethnic background were killed, it varies. That is why I proposed keeping "large" number. Thx. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy diwali pardeep ....nice picture . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 13:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In contradiction to Wikipedia policy, you keep adding general tags where subtags are appropriate. You mark kajor edits as minor, again in contradiction of Wikipedia policy. This behaviour evidences again, you are not yet suitable as a defender of Wikipedia virtues. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 15:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just inform you that removing tags from articles with the excuse of "tag pollution" is not a good excuse and in fact that is against wiki policy; my revert of the tag removal is fully compliant of wiki policy. If you can reach consensus then the tags can be removed, but so far there is none. In other words, my readding a tag after you deleted it without consensus is anti-vandalism. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The site does not look very professional or worthy of linking. Staxringold 21:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thank you for your advice. I was also advised by another editor not to respond to statements, unless they are direct questions, so that I wouldn't look confrontational. So I'm taking a careful approach, in which I replied to Zeq's question 4 and also responded to a criticism about my user page, but I'm not sure I want to respond to each and every one of them, such as pointing out that some people who accuse me of having "POV issues" have either 1- had no interaction with me whatsoever, or 2- dislike me because I stood up to one opposing editor's claim that "sexual repression among Palestinians is so high that rape and incest are quite common" and then go on to claim that I have POV issues! I'll try the best I can, but it doesn't look good for me right now. By the way, I am truly sorry that I didn't notice your RfA earlier, my attention was brought to it too late, and I'm sorry for that. Lastly, I was going to thank all those who supported my nomination after the vote was over, but let me just say thank you now in advance! Ramallite ^(talk) 20:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind - I have nothing to hide, and I don't think I hurt anything by doing so. Just makes him look bad, as I've told him already! Ramallite ^(talk) 22:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it doesn't pertain, and don't mind you deleting the entry, but I did want to know about the word. It was in a merrian-webster dictionary; I can't remember which one, but will try to find out... Chooserr

Wow that was quick...I think it's in a student version...maybe I misspelled it. I'll check in my Rhyming dictionary though. Chooserr

I can't find it in any of mine, maybe I just misread a line...but I don't think so I'll get back to you within a few days and tell you if I found the word. Chooserr

Did you see a new Moon? Doesn't matter, Insha Allah, you'll have a great one! --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, inshallah yours will be great to! :)

--Striver 11:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eid Mubarrak to you too! --Khalid! 13:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Eid, Anon. --Deepak|वार्ता 15:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for all the good work you do here. Best to you and your family. Ma-salaam, BrandonYusufToropov 16:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AE. 4 U 2 -- Svest 19:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}[reply]

Eid Mubarak and best wishes from my side . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 19:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and Eid Mubarak to you too. - ulayiti (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eid Mubarak to you and your familia. --1Muslim 17:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit late, but Eid Mubarak for you as well : ). Yuber^(talk) 18:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seen your commentary about aliens on another page.

Why not check out "UFO Casebook", "Kaufman UFOs" as well.Martial Law 09:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC) :)[reply]

Found out that SOME people just may revolt should there be alien contact, alien life found.

Some of the reasons are religious, some are for vengeance for being made a fool of because they reported the UFO/Alien encounters to the authorities, due to a percieved alleged campaign of ridicule initiated to stop people from reporting UFOs,aliens. Some will revolt, mainly to cause trouble, because they like to cause trouble.

What do you believe will happen, should alien life be found, aliens "show up" ?Martial Law 09:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC) :)[reply]

I moved your sugestion from the Muslim guid to here. Ma salam!

Thanks for your support on my RFA! I appreciate it! PRueda29 16:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had read somewhere that MJ didnt join NOI , but he had hired some bodyguards that were associated with NOI . Although I am not sure about that , it has been a long time . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support on my RfA. I will use my new abilities with the common interest in mind. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ] 03:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks! --Juan Muslim 04:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was away and could not reply!

Heartiest Eid Mubarak from me as well. PassionInfinity 06:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please undelet Sirat un Nabi ? --Striver 03:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok! I tought you where a admin! Thanks anyway :) --Striver 23:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dont forget to inform me the next time you try to become one, you have my vote :) --Striver 00:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we have had our arguments, we have managed to solve them. That is, in contrast to "someone" who is not sunni... --Striver 00:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous editor/Archive 4

---

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (96/2/0), so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any queries about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Again, thanks!

FireFox 18:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know who you are! Jibbajabba 23:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lol.-- a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, for your support on my RfA (and of course your congratulatory note). I greatly appreciate it, and looking forward to your own acquisition of more little buttons at the top of your screen! Thanks again Ramallite ^(talk) 03:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salam!

I have a question. Suppose that a person creates a Wikiproject, spend lots of time to give the project the correct headlines and categories - to the point where other users see it meaningfull to particpiate in it, calling themself for "Guild members" and then start themselve contributing to the page. Then, suppose that a second person creates a really great picture for the guildmembers to use when associting themself with the guild on their Userpage. Assuming the above case, would you conclude that the positive contribution to Wikipedia by those two persons where (A) equally good, or (B) unequal, the one deserving more mertits than the other. In case of (B), wich one do you conclude deserves most merits, the first or second person?

Thanks and ma Salam! --Striver 13:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to say? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt it obvious? Why is me doing a entire guild from scrath, and giving it structure not even commented, but doing a great picture to it is rewarded with a Barnstar? I am not implying that he did not deserve, because he did; im just making a point. --Striver 17:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on talk page. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for sounding like a whining kid... --Striver 17:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and I see my good friend BYT has given you one already. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow! Thank you so very much! I really appreciate it, and mean every word i sad do BYT to you to! Thanks! --Striver 18:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me while I jump for joy!!! -- PRueda29 ^Ptalk29 02:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my RfA. It recently closed with final tally of 51/1/2. I sincerely appreciate it and I hope I can live up to your expectations. I will try my best to be a good administrator. If you ever need anything, just let me know. Thanks! -- Psy guy (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you help out on the Muhammad bin Qasim articles, as I'm getting really frusted at, a member who keeps adding false information to the article or quoting from weak websites. And he just generally likes bashing Islam. The thing is historical documents of the time show that Bin Qasim did not impose Islam on anybody. The Chachnama has reproduced extracts from the historic Brahmanabad Charter which for the eighth century represents a particularly high level of humanistic social order and values. He is deliberately adding biased information into the article when he for a fact knows this was not true. Bin Qasim was reinforced by Non Muslim jatts, who helped him out. Now why would the oppressed help out the oppressor? it just shows have illogical this claim is that Islam was forced upon the population.

--Street Scholar 18:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to ask you something. Did you embraced Islam in September last year? Can you tell me what forced you rather brought you to this point? I don't want a detailed answer, just a small paragraph. Thanks and Allah Hafiz! PassionInfinity 13:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the technical problems have to do with the HTML Tidy extension to MediaWiki, which was disabled earlier today because it made the whole site crash. They're not going to last long, but they're sure a nuisance, aren't they? Titoxd^(?!?) 23:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... for all the work! :) BrandonYusufToropov 20:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]