User:Babajobu/Archive2

Babajobu, could you please help in Ali Sina's talk page? The user OceanSpalsh is back again with his/her personal attacks. Thanks in advance. Cheers -- Svest 23:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Thanks Baba! Well, the reason I contacted you was mainly because of the hate speech the user is into! It's not really because of the edit war. Apart from that Ali's talk page, Ocean never listened to any mediator and never stopped or changed his attitude toward a civil one. This is his former talk page before deleting all of it. Cheers -- Svest 23:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

As far as Muslims are concerned any criticism of Islam is hate speech. I have been a Muslim for five years and know perfectly the hatred that Muslims have for apostates and the level of intolerance towards their critics. Been there, done that myself, without even being aware of it. It all seemed normal to do. Today I find myself on the other side of the fence. Quoting opinions contrary to those believed by Muslims is not hate speech. The Quran is filled with hate speech. Look at the article Ali Sina for example: that is hate speech. The very language is despiteful. My every contribution to Islamofascims, Islamofobia and Ali Sina are removed. The only reason is because they are not in agreement with Islamic creed. We must not allow Wikipedia to be converted into an Islamic tool of propaganda. Both views must be expressed equally. Take the example of Sina’s page. There we have six comments made by anonymous Muslims calling him all names including a mischievous liar, a rabid anti Islamist, Islamophobe, etc. In the paragraph that said “Ali Sina is a controversial personality” I quoted an example of how diverse are the opinions of Sina’s fans from those of his foes. This is not to agree with those opinions. Muslims resisted this example tooth and nail, with all inane and invalid excuses. I made it clear that this is not an endorsement of those views and the notability of the people making those allegations or praises are not important. They are just a sample of what people say about him. It goes from one extreme to another. I think both examples should be stated so the claim that he is a controversial is supported with these examples. Why Muslims do not want to have any mention of what Sina’s fans say about him and only the insults of his foes are mentioned? Any fool will see this article is written by people with an axe to grind against it subject.

Since I joined Wikipedia, every contribution I made was removed and reverted and incidentally those who removed them were invariably Muslims. Am I not allowed to put the two together and conclude that this is Islamic zealotry at work? OceanSplash13.Dec. 2005 18:20

"We must not allow Wikipedia to be converted into an Islamic tool of propaganda." OceanSplash, I agree with this comment and I dislike it when members of any community try to turn "their" corner of Wikipedia into a launching ground for unctuous apologetics for their belief system. I've felt that articles on Islam have a particular tendency to get laden down with "Peace be upon him", and "the Glorious Quran" and so forth, so I understand your concern in this area. However, it's important to remember that there are many Muslim Wikipedians of good intent who will listen to a fair argument and work with others to arrive at a consensus. I haven't been involved in the Ali Sina article, so I can't really say much about what's gone on there, but I would just suggest that it might be useful to take a breather and let your frustrations settle before re-engaging. You also might want to consider joining SIIEG, a guild for people who share your interest in ensuring that articles on Islam retain a balanced, non-apologetic perspective. But remember, WP:NPA and WP:AGF are requirements for SIIEG members! We do not want to "fight" Islam or Muslim Wikipedians, but to improve balance and quality of Islam-related articles. Babajobu 20:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that good post, Baba -- I agree with every single solitary word. No apologetics, no propaganda, on anybody's part. This is a secular encyclopedia. Ocean, I hope you and I can do a lot of good work together. Dialogue is good, attacks are bad. BYT 23:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Baba I joined SIIEG and added it to my watchlist. Good to meet you BYT. I did not see your name in SIIEG. That seems to be an excellent project. Please join. Also we should let each other know the articles we are wroking on so we can come to each other's help and not allow Muslims bully us. They work in gangs. There is no way one individual can stand five especially when the self aponted mediator is also a Muslim. This is highly unethical to belong to a religion and at the same time act as mediator. Isn't this a flagrant conflict of interests? Go to Ali Sina, Islamophobia and Islamofascism and see how our religious friends are tossing me around.OceanSplash13.Dec. 2005 23:25

Thanks, BYT. And obviously I agree that apologetics are by no means an exclusively Muslim vice in Wikipedia. Communal cheer-leading is found everywhere. It's a tricky balance, because obviously members of each community are best equipped to provide information about what their faith-community believes, but they are also most likely to write in a syrupy and celebratory manner. OceanSplash, at the SIIEG talk page people often post updates and notes regarding articles that are of particular concern at any given moment. I agree with you that involved parties should never serve as "mediators", on Islam-related articles or others. It's very bad practice. Also, BYT is Muslim! I don't think he will respond well to the notion that Muslim editors "work in gangs"...that's a good example of how indelicate language might alienate someone who would otherwise be willing to work with you. Anyway, this whole Wikipedia notion of members of different faith communities collaboratively editing entries on each other's religions is a new and very messy enterprise...I'm sure we'll all get more skilled at it as time goes by. Babajobu 02:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Baba: Your words are wise. But I am sorry for not sharing your optimism. I prefer not to have my back to Muslims. My best Muslim friends turned against me once I told them I am out. They were not just ignorant Muslims but doctors and professors. Many of them subtly expressed their desire to see me dead, even though no one actually threatened me. I saw it wise to move to another country and keep my whereabouts guarded. I think I can do without Muslim cooperation and have little need for their friendship. They will stab their best friends in the back. I do not trust their smiles and offers of friendship. That is called Taqiyyah (the art of deception or what they term as “diplomacy”). That is their way to lull you into a false sense of security. Sorry BYT, nothing personal my friend. Once you leave Islam you will understand everything I say and I would love to sit and share our experiences while sipping our cold beers. I played that game of deception too without even thinking about it or being conscious of it. I too got involved into censoring facts about Islam just as Anonymous Editor so zealotry doing here. I wrote articles lying about Islam to present a false image of it, without even thinking this is dishonest. All notions of good and bad faded. All that mattered was da’wa. It was so natural to lie and all seemed so okay. I don’t dislike the Muslim converts here. I feel sympathy for them as I see myself in them. I hope that they too wake up and see the truth. What they do not know is that they have become agents of evil.OceanSplash14.Dec. 2005 02:48

Thanks guys (Babajobu, BYT and of course Ocean as well apart from his personal judgments) for your cooperation. This is how it should be. I hope this will serve as example of how to deal with common articles and find out an understanding so we can enhance the quality of this encyclopedia. Good job! -- Svest 01:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Ocean, the only person I contacted regarding our situation was Babajobu. Him and me had also some misunderstandings in the past and I came here and nowhere else because I believed it would be a wise idea and avoiding arbitration or any support from the favourite side. I hope I succeeded as I believe I've been acting with good faith since I got to know this place. Same as you. No difference. The issue is very simple, though I may be wrong in terms of editing, I may not be wrong in treating you well as a fellow and a collaborator. It may happen at work; you and your Chinese co-worker may not agree about some business dealing details but it doesn't mean she is your enemy or a communist (not to offend any communist; just an example). It may be about the procedure or the way we do work! It happens that she is Chinese, as it's happened that my name is Fayssal. There are no conspiracies envolved here; there are only 'mistrusts and misunderstandings. We've come here as volunteers to add information not to censor it!!! The question is what information should the actual ignorant (my POV) generation and the ones to come should learn. We are full of life and discussing in good faith. So please, hoping that we are going through a better path, personal arguments, misconceptions and misunderstandings based on one's experience are better to be avoided. We don't want people coming here seeking knowledge to read about our nonsense arguments on talk pages. Now you have the SIIEG and also the Muslim Guild that you can join as well to discuss your concerns. That is the main purpose why those guilds were established. Let's do it! Cheers -- Svest 02:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

After our run in some time ago over some article I can't even remember, I didn't think I'd see myself on the same side of a vote as you. This SEIIG thing is rigoddamndiculous, in my humble opinion. But at least we're decent editors ;-) -Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you and I were agreeing on something else recently (maybe the Islamofascism AfD, I'm not sure), and I checked your userpage and remembered we'd had a run-in in days of yore. Ah well, such is the nature of the wiki. Nice as it is to be "one of the few good ones" ;-), alas, whatever brownie points we bring to SIIEG may not be enough to save it this time. A few overzealous members shouldn't condemn any wikiguild to the dustbin...I think this AfD is just a chance for people to get a cheap PC frisson, even though I don't think SIIEG is intrinsically un-PC. Ah well, we'll see how it goes. Babajobu 03:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As I pointed out to SV, there are far worse people involved with some of the other Islam guilds... Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The barnstar really does make me feel better. Holding the line against religious fundamentalism is exhausting, and sometimes I feel very alone. Zora 04:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Zora: How do Muslims become fundamentalists and even terrorists? It is when they read the Quran and try to do what it says. So how can you make them less fundamentalists without telling them that Muhammad was not a prophet but a liar? I don’t know if you are a sincere person or not. What you wrote above makes one think that you are. If you are, take a look at this sermon. Read all of it and tell me how can you convince Muslims this is wrong when whatever is said in this sermon is based on the Quran? Read my talk page and also what I wrote to Mr. Wales. If what you said above is truely heartfelt and not just a meaningless clitche, please reas all the three links I gave you and give me your feedback. If you honestly want to see change, I have the solution. But you must be willing to use your commonsense and think out of box. OceanSplash. 16 Dec. 2005 05:50

OceanSplash, I'm too tired to check this out right now. Will do so within 24 hours or so. Babajobu 06:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey don't go! I know you've had trouble over Islam related articles, perhaps it would be good to just take a break from them for a while. After all, its a big encyclopedia and you should be able to find other less stressful things to do. the wub "?!" 15:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I know there are plenty of other areas...my edits to Islam articles probably only constitute a quarter or less of my total edits. This just pushed me over the edge...I need a break for a while, but I'm sure I'll be back. Babajobu 15:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Please come back soon. I'm fairly sure this nonsense will be deleted based on the way things are going, anyway. Ambi 00:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Baba, you're a good editor and you're needed, so please come back soon. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, because I feel partially at fault here. I feel that SEIIG has become a gathering place for anti-Islamic trolls, and any integrity it had is gone. I totally agree that the seperation the Islam WikiProject is totally unnecessary, and would most defintely back you up if you proposed a merger there. I think you're a good editor, and would like to apologize again if I played any part in this. I didn't want to cause a good editor to leave.--Sean|Black 06:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hope you come back soon. Many wikipedians are missing you. --Kefalonia 11:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, yes, please do come back. I'm sorry I leaned on you to visit the Shi'a articles, if those pushed you over the edge. We need more neutral, fair editors! Zora 12:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I see you editing now [1]. Good decision and good news. See you around! Cheers -- Svest 21:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

A big thanks to everyone who expressed concern! My semi-wikivacation was hardly worthy of the name. More like a vacation from my watchlist than from Wikipedia itself. I'm still taking a bit of a break from my watchlist, but I'm definitely back in the hiznouse! Babajobu 01:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Have a Proper and Merry Crimbo. File:Pressie.gif, in fact here is a pressie from the Doctor to you. Ho. Ho. Ho! File:Unclecrimbo.gif Dr. McCrimbo 22:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not made "vast unilateral changes" at Mizrahi. Why don't you people ever compare versions. You are all so revert-happy. I have added nothing to the article, just made "Arab Jews" into a section, since there is enough info there to take it out of the intro, whichh has become cluttered. And I'm putting Kurdish back in, because it is spoken by the Kurdish Jews, which ARE Mizrahi group. Al-Andalus 02:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC).

Hi al-Andalus, I did look at the diff...I think the thing that most needed discussion was the assertion that "consecutive Ashkenazi administrations" had suppressed the "Arab Jew" identity. Regards, Babajobu 02:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Welkies! My pleasure and Good luck :) - Szvest 16:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Seems like voting for Maradona! Already approaching 10 votes in less than an hour!!!! -- Szvest 16:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you let that water pass a bit more and support like I did? ;) Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yup I vote earlier and voted just again. I voted twice. :D Sorry. --Terence Ong ^Talk 04:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Number 7. :P --Terence Ong ^Talk 04:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I've informed the Committee. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd very much like to hear your opinion on this. Peace, BYT 14:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

How does one get users to actually use the talk pages? It seems on talk:Islamism and talk:Islamist Terrorism, there is but one edit since mine, and that is user:Farhansher moving a section down the page from where it was previously.

I do not understand this but it seems that if there is no one editing in things that they disagree with, these users consider the page "theirs" and will not bother with the talk page at all.

Please advise.Queeran

Advice needed: revert warrior user:LeeHunter claimed that his objections were not answered (they were) and reverted on that basis, nevermind that admin SlimVirgin certifies the source as a usable source on wikipedia, and has repeated his ad hominem attacks upon the author of the article.Queeran

I have left one more message on the article's talk page, but it seems obvious they have no other purpose than to edit war/POV on that page. The fact that LeeHunter quoted the reliable sources page as his "proof", when it is the exact page Slimvirgin says Frontpage passes the test on, is quite sad. He also has yet to provide any links or other evidence other than his namecalling attacks such as "worldnutdaily" that the author is biased. Queeran

Hi! Fuck the borders and thanks for voting for me! I got the Adminship! If you need anything, just give me a shout! (I may have gone overtop on the punctuation) - FrancisTyers 00:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Christ archive your talk page already :P - FrancisTyers 00:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Check out Kamen Rider if you can- real brilliant stuff if you're at all into tokusatsu. Unfortunately, the subtitled DVD's are only available in the Phillipines. I'm sure that it's on somewhere. Anyways, thank you very much, and you are welcome- I know you will use the tools well. And I'm usually on IRC if you want to chat. Thanks again!--Sean|Black 01:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I vote conservative, but I am actually fairly liberal on certain issues. Just depends on what the issue is. Thanks for the kind words.--MONGO 01:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

oh and congrats...it's just a matter of time now.--MONGO 02:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Babajobu:

Congratulations for your election as the administrator of Wikipedia. I am sorry I did not vote in time. I was blocked by Jtkiefer for one week. Wikipedia is certainly a better place with you.

I have a question to ask you. I believe I am being harassed by a few biased administrators of Wikipedia. This time it is Jtkiefer. He is now seeking to become an arbitrator. I had some questions for him and when I posted those questions in the appropriate page, instead of answering them, he removed them. You can find my questions to him in the history of that page. Here is the link [2] and here is what I asked.

Questioning Jtkiefer’s impartiality

Dear Jtkiefer

You blocked me for one week with no just cause and accused me of using a sockpuppet with no evidence. This is libel and a lie Sir. You also blocked Nosharia’s account assuming he is my stockpuppet. So you wronged two people. I asked you for proof and I ask you again. Where is your proof Sir that Nosharia was my sockpuppet? Just the fact that he agreed with me is enough to convict both of us? If you can’t produce any proof, which certainly you can’t (It is very likely Nosharia posts from a different country than I do and this can be verified by checking our IP numbers) are you willing to acknowledge that you judged hastily and apologize to both of us? Can you overcome your pride and do the right thing? Will you also tell us if you are in the habit to “first shoot and then ask the question” how can you be trusted for the office you are seeking? Before voting for the respected Jtkiefer I suggest he should be investigated more thoroughly. He is the author of many blockings. Are all of them justifiable or are they the result of his abuse of power? Is the honorable Jtkiefer utterly fair-minded or is he motivated by religious and/or political zeal that undermine his capacity to serve as an unbiased arbitrator? I also wrote a complaint against you to Jimbo.[[3]]Looks like he has no time to read the messages that people write to him. I will wait your response before taking my complaint to the arbitration committee. I remain cordially yours. OceanSplash 6, Jan 2006 23:41

I believe this administrator has abused his powers and not only has maligned me he also blocked Noshaira indefinitely under a false pretext that I am sure upon investigation can easily be proven false. Where do you suggest I should take my complaint?

Also please be on the watch out for me as our dear friend might also decide to block me indefinitely. It seems that our friend’s favourite method to handle difficult situations is by abusing his powers. Will you be able to restore my account should our friend block me?

Thanks for your attention. OceanSplash 7 Jan. 2006 04:11

• Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 17:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Babajobu!!! Please be good to vandals but make sure you never feed any troll! Cheers -- Szvest 18:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}
• De nada hombre! O mujer?! ;). My pleasure. Same, please advise me in case you believe I need some! Enjoy. Szvest 20:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}
• A non-form thank-you note?! It's been ages since I've seen one of those! Congratulations on your promotion; I'm sure you'll be a great admin! —Kirill Lokshin 23:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Congratulations, and you're very welcome! I won't even comment on that fantastic heading.  :) --King of All the Franks 00:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Congrats Baba! And I am happy that we settled the dispute. I tried sending you an email to congratulate you but got server problems twice. And don't worry since you have said that you will avoid using admin powers on articles which are the few where you and I have disputes, there should be no problem. To celebrate, let's go block a few people! --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Quote by Babajobu: "I am not going to use my admin privileges in articles relating to Islam or animal rights. I think I would be able to use the privileges fairly even for those articles, but not doing so just seems like the safe way to go for a number of reasons." This is a very noble gesture from you Babajobu, and could probably not be expected from the majority of people. If Anonymous editor would say something similar to Kashmir/India related articles, I would probably forget the things of the past. --Kefalonia 10:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations from me too, we've already spoken on irc, but I thought I'd leave a note here too. I have no feelings either way regarding your neo-con leanings, your vegetarianism however is another matter! ;) User:FrancisTyers- 00:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Congratulations. My watchlist just showed a group of people congratulating you, so I shall do likewise. Queeran
• Hey kiddo, you did it and with an impressive number of supports. Congratulations and be sure to use it for the good! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Congratulations on becoming an admin . I hope our future relations are better than our past one . Cheers & ...............PEACE . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 14:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Congratulations on your promotion! I have no doubt that you'll make an excellent admin, and I'll be sure to contact you in case I ever need help. You really made me blush with that comment about me on my talk page - but you also bolstered my ego, so I guess "thanks!" is in order ;-) Cheers my dear Baba! -- Phædriel ^*whistle* 06:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• cheers man, thats good to know. thanks and Congrats! --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Congratualtions - and all the best. So you are aware of Chennai, and in case you come this side again, please let me know: you are most welcome! --Bhadani 16:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• You're welcome Babajobu. Congrats --Deepak|वार्ता 06:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• You are welcome. Congratulaions and good luck. You'll be one of the best admins around. If anyone deserved the job, you did. --Kefalonia 10:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Got your message, congrats and good luck kemosabe. Arm

Hi, I hadn't realised you were in Dublin - fellow vegetarian also I see now. Dlyons493 Talk 20:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Babajobu, I enjoyed the discussion we had on this category on #wikipedia. I still think categories like this are useful but I agree that the subjectivity is a serious problem. I think the best approach might be to establish a consensus on the evidence required to include someone and to make sure everyone in the category meets those criteria. I threw out a few ideas at Category talk:Anti-Semitic people, if you have a minute I'm curious to hear your thoughts. GabrielF 00:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Babajobu, people keep wanting to nominate me for admin and I keep turning it down. I'm too outspoken, too direct, and I get involved in too many disputes. I think I'm more useful NOT being an admin. But it's sweet of you to think of me! Zora 01:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy if the picture stays up, minus that ... thigh! But I'd also be happy if someone found a BETTER picture. It doesn't look like the picture is going to be just flat-out deleted, which is heartening. Zora 01:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Soon or later, she will be handling that. She deserves that while she keeps on whinning about it! Good sign! Szvest 02:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Fayssal, huh? Babajobu 02:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

What?! Babajobu? lol! -- Szvest 02:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Hey you're welcome! Thanks for the offer, and you may hear from me some time! South Africa is a great place scenically. But it aint Dublin as far as crime goes... Cape Town is really cool, you should go there! Cheers Banes 16:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your vote on sh Wikipedia. That voting for closing is not correct. Sh Wikipedija is active. There is over 2000 articles. People must know for this fullish voting! Thank you again. Best regards. --M. Pokrajac 22:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Babajobu.

Here we have a blatant abuse of power by the administrator Jtkiefer who is also seeking to become an arbitrator.

He accused me of using a sockpuppet (which was proven to be false). He insults me and accuses me of “racism, hatemongering, and harrassment”. He also called me incivil and Islamophobe. I object to all these charges and accuse Jtkiefer of abusing his administrative powers to serve his religious/political bias. I ask you please to unblock me so I can clear my name from all these false in vindictive charges. If after a proper hearing, I am found guilty as my opponent charges me, you can block me again. In any civilized form of Justice the accused has the right to self defense. Here we have an individual who is fearful of being exposed for blatant abuse of power and he blocks me so I can’t be heard. Ask him why he deleted my page completely? Isn’t it because he wants to cover his track? Isn’t it because he is afraid of me using my own page to voice the truth about him? I saved that page and can post it for everyone to see.

Now all my Muslim opponents cheer and celebrate their victory. This reminds me of how Muslims cheered after 3000 Americans were killed in 9/11 or when Theo Van Gogue was assassinated.

When it became clear that his had unjustly accused me of using a sockpuppet, Jtkiefer apologized. I accepted his apology and said he is a gentleman. The I worte his following message in which he showed he is still hostile and continues with character assassination. This is the message he saw that made him block me.

Jtkiefer wrote: "he was blocked for incivility and blatant racism."

It does not seem to me that you are repentant after all. I withdraw that title of “gentleman” until this matter is resolved and you have proven yourself to be a gentleman. As it is clear, you seem to continue pouring your vitriol on me and “assassinating” my character. Your accusations against me are all subjective and motivated by your religious affiliation.

I would like to take this matter further and ask someone independent whose judgment is not obfuscated by religious hatred of the apostates to decide whether you acted properly or overstepped the boundaries of moderation and violated your powers bestowed on you by the Wikipedians. I would like again to ask BabaJobu, who even my numerous Muslim opponents acknowledge to be a fair-minded person to check into this matter and determine whether I acted with incivility or you overstepped your limits. Incivility is an insult. It is synonymous to barbarity, impoliteness, insolence, unmanrliness and impudence. You did not stop there. You even accused me of racism. This is far worse.

Will you please tell us how did you come to these very harsh conclusions? If you can’t, are you decent enough to acknowledge you acted hastily and out of your religious zeal?

Your accusation that I used a scocpuppet was proven wrong. Now you deny having accused me of being a sockpuppet. You are right. You said Nosharia is my sockpuppet. Is there a difference? You seem to undermine our intelligence Sir. That was easy to prove false and you had not choice but to apologize. Now you are making another even bigger accusation. This time you are insulting me. I request that you show in an objective way the basis of this accusation or withdraw it. Halfhearted apologies are not needed, but acknowledgement of your misjudgment of my character would be welcomed.

I accused those Muslims who attacked me, censored me and blocked me of acting unfairly and out of their religious conviction and not out of their allegiance to Wikipedia, impartiality and fairness. I did not deserve to be treated in this harsh manner. The only reason I was dealt with in such a way is because I tried to make Wikipeida impartial and an unbiased source of information when it comes to Islam. It is my belief the encyclopaedias should not serve as platform or propaganda for any religion or belief but rather the views of the supporters and the critics of that belief should be reported with total impartiality. This is not something Muslims can stomach easily. They call the critics of Islam “Islamophobes” and “racists” to silence them or like Theo Van Gogue assassinate them. Christians have also their critics. Bertrand Russell and Thomas Paine are just two of many. Nonetheless the critics of Christianity are not called Christianophobes and racists or hate mongers. They are not vilified by the Christians. They are respected as philosophers and thinkers even though the Christians do not agree with them. The only charge brought against me is that I am critical of Islam. This is against the law in Islamic countries, but should it be also against the rule of Wikipedia? I am a critic of Islam. What right you have to call me an Islamophobe and a racist? What right you have to call me incivil? These are adhominems and insults at my character and integrity.

We must not let this pass without clarifying the point. Evil triumphs when good people do nothing. I believe what you did, and what other Muslims did to me was wrong. You ganged up together; acted out of religious zealotry, abused my right to free speech, violated the rules of Wikipedia, harassed me, blocked me and even insulted me. This matter must be investigated especially because you are seeking to become an arbitrator and you continue with your character assassination of me and insults. You must show you are fit for office you are seeking. OceanSplash 8 Jan 2006 02:20

Every time injustice takes place tyranny wins. We should not forget the words of Martin Niemöller, who opposed the insanity of the Nazis and wrote: First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Dear Babajobu. This is not a minor injustice. This is an assault against free speech a loss for freedom and a victory of fascism. Good people should not let evil triumph. All I ask is a fair chance to bring this matter to the attention of the board of arbitrators. Let them decide who is at fault. But the person who has beef against me can’t act as prosecutor and judge at the same time. OceanSplash 8 Jan. 2006 07:22

I may not be able to write in Wikipedia again. Please contact me with email JamesHomer36&yahoo.com (use @ instead of &) Also will you please post the link to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents here. I can't access that page since the link to it was in my page and now it is deleted.

Just FYI, I think I should call your attention to the following three edits that popped up on my watch list: [4] - A user falsely calls a comment "vandalism" and deletes it from talk page [5] - The same comment removed from SlimVirgin's talk page by a user with known pro-Islam POV. [6] - The user who stripped it from talk:Islamist terrorism strips it off again from SlimVirgin's talk page.

I've left SlimVirgin a note apprising her of the situation [7], and left Swollib a note asking him/her not to delete the comments of other people from talk pages [8], is there anything else I should do?

Thanks, Queeran

Need help. Swollib has responded. [9]. Swollib also claims to be a "Counter-vandalism unit member". Queeran

Your user page says that you're on wikibreak due to a bereavement. My sincere sympathies. Zora 08:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

My sympathies as well. Queeran

Very sorry to hear that Babajobu :( - Szvest 23:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Condolences on your loss.

I was just wondering if deeceevoice's talk page is really the correct place for a straw poll. Especially given the fact that people have been very intrusive there (both well meaning and ill-intentioned people), I think it would be far better to place it elsewhere. I doubt any of us would enjoy a straw poll taking place on our user page (or even on our talk page). Please do re-think the placement of the straw poll (the merit too, but absolutely the placement). Guettarda 22:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Guettarda 23:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm feeling much better about it now. Thanks for your note; it always helps brighten my day. I hope you find some peace while you're out on bereavement leave. Best wishes, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, Babajobu. Thanks for your comments about the Quran photo. You're right: I don't have any legal control over whether the image is used in the article or not, but I thank you for considering my opinion on the matter, even though we disagree. Quadell 13:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I already told him as much above, without making it sound so conspiratorial and sinister. They block you here for questioning other people's motives and for personal attacks. If you want to hang around, don't do it. Nothing ominous about any of that. Babajobu 08:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.

I said that their POV seemed that likely they were Zionist. Is that a banning offense?

How did these people get in the postion that they have? They seem to work together.

I wouldn't say that I'm a Holocaust denier, more of an atheist on either side of the issue.

But I do acknowledge that there are a hell-of-a-lot of people on this planet that don't buy into the Holocaust fully, in varying degrees, as promoted by jewish advocates. As a matter of fact the official death toll has been downsized from 6m to 1.5m. Is this the only element in world history that it is illegal (ie banning) to talk about?

This is why I am requesting that this be removed from Budapest as being controvertial and moved to Jews in Hungary. Thanks again.Bloblaw 09:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I too wish to express my condolences at your loss - having had the same experience recently Bloblaw 09:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is really about Holocaust denial. One admin asked if we had a "stance" toward holocaust denial, and every other admin who responded said no, we don't need a special stance. I'm an admin, and I couldn't care less whether he thinks the holocaust happened or didn't happen. My only concern is that he 1) not try to insinuate that belief into articles over the objections of a consensus of editors who have scads of documentation from reliable sources on their side, and 2) that when someone asserts that the holocaust did happen, he not respond by claiming they are a "Zionist shill" being paid by a "Jewish advocacy" group. Bloblaw, in reference to your question on my talkpage, you cannot have the conent removed from the Budapest article because a) a consensus of editors disagrees with you and thinks it is relevant, and 2) mainstream sources reject your assertion that the numbers are wildly exaggerated. Perhaps one day in the future mainstream sources will have come around to your belief, and at that time Wikipedia will reflect it. But until then, it cannot. Babajobu 09:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Your message is refreshing. I'm glad that the discontent of the editors is not on the issue of Holocaust denial. I hope that they are sincere (not so sure). Because that would be a red herring. As I have attempted to say over and over, it is that this contentious subject of Nazis vs Jews is on the homepage of Budapest. I understand your message that I should refrain from calling it as I see it.

The sentence in question, in my opinion, is an insertion that the Holocaust did happen. As unpopular as it is with the editors, there is an alternate dialogue. Hence the request that the subject being moved to an appropriate venue.

Perhaps one day in the future mainstream sources will have come around to your belief, and at that time Wikipedia will reflect it. But until then, it cannot.

Nice concept ;-) We both know that mainstream media (Hollywood, television and print) are owned by special interests. I probably won't live to see the day when true dialogue rules.

Thanks for the warning but I'll play this out, I'll be strong but polite and if the f*ckers want to ban me to shut me up then so be it. We'll find out if they are sincere anyway Bloblaw 10:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Splendid! That was the first thing I read when I woke up. I laughed-out-loud. You'll note I didn't say I'd vote to move it, I think there would be benefits to it being moved, that is, the article could focus on the features of Islamic movements, politics etc. that are ideologically cohesive with fascism or totalitarianism instead of the seemingly endless to and fro as to if the term is hate speech or not (boring). Perhaps we should have both articles, one describing the epithet and one describing the movements. I don't know. However, as I have noted on the talk page, the (term) should definately be dropped. I'm off to Galway, I'll see you next week. - FrancisTyers 10:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Babaloo,

You have left a message on my talk page - being a newbie what is the best way to respond to your message? On my page or yours? Bloblaw 11:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"Just cite the sources, explain why those sources are notable, et cetera."

Now that was a very carefully thought out edit you just made. Because as we know, with the corruption of mainstream media as it is, that presents a conundrum.

"Having an extreme and marginal POV is fine...it's when someone starts demanding that Wikipedia articles share that POV that they run into problems. Babajobu 12:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)"

Well there's the rub - I didn't ask for my POV to be expressed - I stated that Holocaust orthodoxy was inappropriately on the Budapest page and should be removed. If I have to quote mainstream media sources, we both know that it's a none starter. That's the conundrum. --Bloblaw 13:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You are insisting that I want to publish my POV - I don't, but it seems that you choose to not see that. BUT - I get it - I can only publish my POV anytime if it is supported by citations from mainstream (acceptable) media. Needless to say that doesn't work for me. So I'll just have to accept that Wikipedia has its problems and on politically sensitive issues will be no more reliable than the mainstream media which we all know has lost much of its credibility with the public. ciao - Bloblaw 13:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

____

Because you are an admin, I have a question. Why was my account (Bloblaw) terminated? This was done without accountability are even warning. Please advise. Thanks. PS. Since my account is no longer existing, could you please post your response here on your page. Thanks again

Hi Bloblaw...I just checked your account, and it still very much exists! Nor have you been blocked, so your account is ready to go! Is it possible you just forgot your password? Babajobu 19:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Baba - mea culpa - you were correct - thanks BobLoblaw 07:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I have edited the article and left a reply on the talk page. If you have any more questions or comments, feel free... --SpinyNorman 04:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The teddy bear in the top right hand corner was removed for a reason... haz (user talk) 11:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You move with the eloquence of disintegrating fuselage.

Dustmites the world over love you for your feet.

Cretins and vermin cannot compare with the depths of your lassitude.

All the best.
Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 12:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to edit my article. I'm sure someone else is much more misunderstood by now :)

Regards, Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 04:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Regretfully I have to inform you that I am taking a break from wikipedia. Watching everything go on, and seeing no editors otherwise bothering to confront the islamists, I must conclude that I am either the only one or that others are too scared to bother.

I will send you a message if and when I return.

Peace be upon you, but real peace, not salaam. Queeran

I've read a lot of your posts and, as you know, I have quite a bit of respect for your style and the way you think things through. I'm a bit mystified, therefore, as to why you changed your mind of Islamofascism. Is it, as you suggest, to free BYT to go forth and do more good work on other pages? I hope it isn't that. I guess what I'm saying is, I can't believe you really support burying this article, but you have some deeper fish to fry. Anyway, if you have some really great argument for doing this, I would certainly listen. Cheers, IronDuke 03:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, IronDuke. My willingness to change my vote is not due to the desire to get Brandon to focus his attention elsewhere. "Islamofascism" is notable, and I believe now, as I believed before, that it is an entirely appropriate topic for Wikipedia. In the AfDs on Islamofascism people generally argued for or against its deletion. People who argued for a redirect invariably said something along the lines of "offensive! redirect!", or "delete this trash and redirect". I never had any truck with these argument/opinions. The term is notable, end of story. It is/was not acceptable, in my mind, to replace discussion of the term with a more general, PC discussion at neofascism and religion. However, this time something different has happened. Rather than simply trying to "disappear" the topic of Islamofascism, the redirecters have actually incorporated the entire discussion of Islamofascism into the neofascism and religion article as a subheading of the Islam section. That resolution works well enough for me. Many notable topics in Wikipedia are covered as sub-headings in more general articles. Before it seemed that the editors working on neofascism and religion would have nothing to do with the topic of the term Islamofascism, so a standalone article was necessary. Now Islamofascism is discussed in the same place as the more general discussion of fascist elements in Islamic movements, which I think works well. Hope this clarifies a bit! I don't want to be Brutus! ;-)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I would only wonder aloud, in response, how it is that the same people who insist that Islam does not, has not, and could never in any known quantum universe have anything to do with fascism therefore want to redirect this article to neofascism. As I said elsewhere, someone who wants to know what the word means should only have to type it into the serach box and hit enter for the word and its defintion to come up instantly. They should not have to root around other articles for it. IronDuke 03:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A guy that personally read the entire report correct the information. HE WAS FOUND PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE. PERIOD. Robert Taylor 03:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Eh, you removed "personal" so that it only read "indirectly responsible". As I told you, it was only a matter of time before someone reinserted "personally" after you'd removed it. Now that's happened. Alas, the description is still imperfect, because while the Kahan Commission report describes him as "personally responsible", they also state that his responsibility is "indirect". The article no longer reflects that. Instead, it reflects the view of people who would prefer that the commission had never used the qualifier "indirect". Cheers. Babajobu 03:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, could you explain the deletion of the above  ? I had thought we were awaiting a proper , or at least more than 2 total votes. I certainly would have voted keep, if I had thought that the 2 delete there would be enough . I was waiting so as not to be pushy etc. Can youplease undelete or post it for a review, as the info was sourced to the page, and the info was precise and historically true. If the review cannot re-link the information, the information will neeed extracting and repositioning directlty into the Hitler article, will it not? Thanks EffK 09:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou Babajou for sending me the page. I crashed recently and the copy I made may not have reached a back up disc. So, could you kindly post also to my page the discussion which contained long posts I had hoped that Wyss would use in concert with me , concerning the Nazi use of financial arrangements. I have to say that I find the actions of McClenon extremely strange and arbitrary and requiring our attention. This page was sourced by near complete quotation from source. It seems the words 'POV fork' is enough to turn WP into a childlike force for obfuscation. I really am most shocked by what is done on WP to reduce and excise facts. I should like to make a request to restore the page -if you could help technically I would say that you add a great service to the organ. Bye EffK 09:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting the java.lang article, as per my AfD. I was wondering, would you mind deleting the java.lang.reflect article, as well, as per here. (We came to that consensus.) - ElAmericano | talk 22:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Normally if more than one article is to be deleted, they should both/all be listed in the title of the AfD. Still, I went ahead and deleted the second article as well. Regards, Babajobu 00:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info. I'll keep that in mind. - ElAmericano | talk 20:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I returned from break, and saw the article had been moved to Islamic extremist terrorism and that Yuber and LeeHunter were attempting to revert war against information about Iranian support of terrorism and the elections in Palestine being included.

I reported Yuber for breaking the terms of his RFAR, and his patron Slimvirgin has now made a false accusation against me.

I am strongly considering outright quitting, this sort of corruption is absolutely beyond the pale. Queeran

Nevermind, disregard. Reported Yuber for violating his parole, got accused of being Enviroknot by his patron Slimvirgin, got harassed by sean_black in irc for asking for admins to enforce the parole terms... I quit, this is complete garbage. Queeran

As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.

In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.

I'm sorry, but I don't speak sarcasm. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, Babajobu/Archive2! Your user page has been nominated for the Esperanza User Page Award! Five judges will look over your user page and award it 1-10 points in four categories:

• Attractiveness: general layout, considering colour scheme and/or use of tables if applicable
• Usefulness: links to subpages or editing aids, helpful information
• Interesting-ness: quirky, unique, captivating, or funny content
• General niceness: at the judges' discretion

But first, you must be chosen as a finalist. If your user page is chosen as one of the five finalists, you'll have the chance to win an award created just for having a great user page!

More information can be found on this page.

KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 19:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. On my RFC, you said:

We showed consideration and a willingness to explore other options, and he basically said "piss off, I'm deleting it."

I don't remember you showing a willingness to explore other options. (I didn't show such a willingness either, so I'm not singling you out.) I just remember us edit-warring. But I did not say "piss off, I'm deleting it"; I only deleted it after two weeks of voting, and after you reverted my removal twice with the comments "rv attempt to impose minority viewpoint on page", and "rv overriding of consensus; Quadell, this needs to be worked out on talk page without dismissing will of majority". In my view, neither one of us was trying to work together constructively.

I'd really like to patch things up with you and move on now. We're both admins, and we both want to improve Wikipedia. But I have some questions, and it would help me to get your feedback, just for my peace of mind.

1. Do you still feel you did the right thing in insisting the photograph of my wife be included in Wikipedia?
2. I would have been willing to leave the image on Wikipedia's servers until a replacement could be found, so long as the image wasn't on the Qur'an page in the meantime. It was your reversion of my removal that convinced me I needed to delete it. Do you think that your reversion to include the image was appropriate?
3. I have apologized for edit warring over this. Do you think you should as well, or do you think your actions were appropriate?
4. In the future, if the photographer of a work asks that his photo not be used on a certain page, and if there isn't a clear consensus on whether the photo belongs on the page or not, do you think the photo should be used there, or do you think the photographer's wishes should be respected?
5. What do you think I could have done better to have avoided the conflict? If I had asked Jimbo to delete the image, instead of doing it myself, would that have been appropriate in your view? If I had waited another two weeks (with the offending photo still on the page), would that have helped? And should I have had to stand for the image being used in a way I clearly objected to? If there was a way I could have dealt with the situation better, I'd like to know so I can learn from my mistakes.

Thanks for your answers. You've clearly been thoughtful throughout all this, and have never shown an unwillingness for discussion, and for that you should be commended. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I don't think Jimbo thinks of you as a sickness. I think he meant that the attitude of "it's legal for me to use this picture, so I will, even though it's rude" is a sickness. But I don't think he meant it as a personal attack against you.

When I first saw your post on my talk page ("Oh boy, we're in trouble now!!"), I had no idea what you were talking about. But when I took a look at the Request for Comment page, it became obvious. I understand if Jimbo disagrees with our point of view, but by no means do we (or maybe I?) owe Quadell an apology for putting up the request for comment. I don't understand how he could consider enforcing the reasonable rules of Wikipedia a "sickness to Wikipedia". What I do think is absurd is that we should be forced to ignore the recent actions by Quadell. Although Quadell may not ultimately be removed from his admin position, initating this request for comment alone means he'll have to face the situation and take accountability.

P.S. I love the addition to your user page. joturner 21:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Great summary judgement on the request for comment. I'm glad you have the courage to say what needs to be said despite the influence of Jimbo's opinions. joturner 01:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about closing the request for comment? Quadell has, in my opinion, taking a sufficient amount of accountability. And to me it seems like the page has been a way for other users to cardstack the opinion that the request was unnecessary in the first place. Are you ready to concede defeat? If so, I will withdraw the request for comment. If not, it is likely the request will not last for much longer as it will be closed by someone else. joturner 05:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the process of withdrawing the RFC. joturner 05:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Great minds think alike, eh? Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the IP reverted 4 times. Doing something for the first time is not a revert. Anyway, I've blocked for 24 hours.--Pharos 07:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The IP first removed the image almost 40 minutes after the previous cycle of add-remove. There is no particular reason to believe that they were aware of the previous editing history, and hence they were not "reverting" to an earlier version in any meaningful sense. Anyway, I always like to give the benefit of the doubt.--Pharos 07:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Splash and RexNL also unprotected the page. Katefan0 and Howcheng would have as well....they are both regular protected page patrollers. I don't think we *all* misunderstand the policy. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Only thing I would consider is full protection here. Semi is not appropriate. As I said on the talk page, I see an edit war as much as vandalism. Many of the IP edits were perfectly valid. And as I said, do you really think that we all misunderstand the policy? And the people I mentioned have all done many many protections and unprotections. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

See this. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Raul654/protection is a good explanation. Again, we're all wrong? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry we can't agree, but I am not going back on my word and any protections are going to be overruled by me or one of my protection patrol colleagues. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep it's legit. Don't know how much you know about Jason, but he has so many socks that we've literally lost count. It's insane. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather confused by the latest (at around 11:30-40 UTC) developments at the talk page. If you have access to IRC I'd be happy to continue the debate there as I feel that the talk page is a poor medium for such discussion and its rapidly filling up with off-topic content. Regards, Scoo 11:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude, your smart arse oral sex comments would have made milk fly out of my nose... if i hadn't already finished my brekky :) WookMuff bout now, 3rd of feb

Hey, just wanted to thank you for your amazing efforts to keep the discussion page civil, organized, and coherent. Your efforts have meant a lot to me, especially when saner heads need to prevail and I get the urge to smash something or bang my head against the wall ;) Sol. v. Oranje 21:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"The above comment is from a user who seems to be an anit-Muslim Serb." Say it ain't so... :P :) WookMuff 12:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A "sickness on Wikipedia"? When did he say that? --Fang Aili 22:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In a recent RfC. Actually, I believe he called me a "rules lawyer" and then said that rules lawyering was a "sickness on Wikipedia", but I prefer to take full credit for the slur myself. Babajobu 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I know how I can close the pictures from options. But I don't want to close the images before entering this article, and 1.5 billion Muslim also. Ruzgar 00:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden.That is raping the holy things of Islam.And it is not about "freedom".--Erdemsenol 00:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Babajobu ... please take a look at the refrences that i have added to the text dealing with Muslim's viewpoint --Unfinishedchaos 01:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

They just keep going on..... --KimvdLinde 01:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they should make protection of sections possible? --KimvdLinde 01:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I came back to see if I can deal with it... but I see from your page the islamists are trying to impose their "no image" nonsense in Wikipedia too, so unless you ask me to, I'm going to stay gone.

Besides, it wasn't the misbehavior of the islamists really that got me. It's the misbehavior of admins who seem dead-set on protecting them at all costs, like the one who made baseless accusations against me because I reported Yuber. Queeran