User talk:RiskAficionado/Archive 7

Hi Itaqallah. If it's not too much trouble, could you have a look at Talk:2007? An IP has posted something there in Arabic, but I don't have the skill level to know what that might be. I'm curious, but more importantly I don't want other editors confused by the presence of the text. Thanks, and best wishes getting Islam featured! -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 00:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, as someone who edits Islam related articles, I was wondering if you could comment on my proposal for standardising the citation of the Qur'an using a single template. Thanks. → Aktar ^{(talk • contribs)} — 21:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Itaqallah, Hope you are well. My question to you is recently I want to add a Review by Dr.Ali sina on Zakir naik but it is deletaded continuancely by zakir naik fans I am surprised and angry by this behaviour because at first i didn't change even a single word in that atricle but seeing this kind of facist behaviour i wonder why i should prevent myself editing other atricle in wikipedia everyone should respect each other view suppose if i praise dr.zakir naik my link or writting are safe but if something opposite or dunceing i want to add my atricle or link will be deleted what kind mindset this is let the reader judge everything —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dhanmondi (talk • contribs) 08:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

hello, i think we should keep the article encyclopedic. the link you are inserting does not add enecyclopedic value to the article. please consult the links provided on the talk page. ITAQALLAH 16:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I was trying to get more information about this from AnonMoos, but s/he appears to have gone offline. I will gladly unprotect the article if it is a single user causing disruption, but being unfamiliar with the article, I was unsure which version was correct, and who was in the right. Should Dreamz rosez be blocked as a sockpuppet, in your opinion? Thanks, – Riana_ऋ 16:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK. I've dropped the protection to semi, reverted to AnonMoos's version, and have blocked the Dreamz rozez account for 2 weeks (I would block for longer, but would like some input from Swatjester first). Thanks for your advice. – Riana_ऋ 16:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The source[1] says:"According to one tradition attributed to Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, black dogs are evil, or even devils, in animal form... The vast majority of Muslim jurists considered this particular tradition to be falsely attributed to the Prophet, and therefore, apocryphal."

--Aminz 22:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, this is interesting: "Most jurists rejected the traditions mandating the killing of dogs as fabrications because, they reasoned, such behavior would be wasteful of life." LOL!!! --Aminz 22:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is more reasoning: "These jurists argued that there is a presumption prohibiting the destruction of nature, and mandating the honoring of all creation. Any part of creation or nature cannot be needlessly destroyed, and no life can be taken without compelling cause.[14] For the vast majority of jurists, since the consumption of dogs was strictly prohibited in Islam, there was no reason to slaughter dogs." --Aminz 22:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's sahih. Arrow740 08:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Aminz, its time that people learn about Islam and animals. The quotes will stay. The hadith is Sahih as Arrow indicated, its Sahih Bukhari. You cant get more Sahih than that. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

In this edit, you removed the sourced line "Jihad is also used in the meaning of struggle for or defense of Islam.<ref name="jih"/>" - can I know why? Also you shortened the Ref for Esposito to just 2006a. Why is that? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

i replaced the first paragraph with what can be found in the Islam article's first para on the section of Jihad. the other sentence was removed because it was a residual of the misrepresentation of the primary meaning of Jihad in the first para (i.e. 'Jihad is also used ... defense of Islam'). the meaning of the sentence is already covered adequately in the preceding and succeeding sentences. ITAQALLAH 19:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Now Kaaba also has Muhammad picture[2]. I need to file arbitration case on next Monday or so. It is becasue I need to work on paper in real life and have to take a wikibreak. I hope you will help me before Islam also have many pictures of Muhammad. --- A. L. M. 09:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Indeed it does. The articles' text reads, "A story found in Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah (as reconstructed and translated by Guillaume) shows Muhammad as settling a quarrel between Meccan clans as to which clan should set the cornerstone in place. Muhammad had all the clan elders raise the cornerstone on a cloak; he then set the stone into place." It is impossible to imagine a more topical image than one which depicts exactly what is described in the text. Additionally, unlike several which ALM has uploaded, this image is undeniably notable in its own right.Proabivouac 09:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Itaqallah, I wonder if you could take the time to look at this dispute. I'm sure you'll immediately appreciate that this has nothing to do with POV, but mere quality control.Proabivouac 19:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help.Proabivouac 21:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Itaqallah, it's a real shame that you (like Merzbow) don't wish to be an admin. Although that may mean you don't wish to submit yourself to RfA, which I completely understand. The current process punishes serious people working in contentious spaces. Of course, you wouldn't be allowed to exercise the tools where you edit, or against editors with whom you've been in direct conflict, but...we have a core of reasonable people - Tom harrison, FayssalF, HighInBC, Grenavitar - whose only shortcoming is in not being sufficiently numerous. (On this note, it's also a shame that Dev920's last candidacy failed.) In my experience, while, like anyone else, you have your biases, your temperament is patient, thoughtful and judicious, and I believe you will be relatively even-handed where you are asked and expected to be. At the very least, please involve yourself more in admin-level discussions, wherever you can find the time.Proabivouac 09:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Itaqallah,

I think this article is not hard to be made a GA article :) --Aminz 10:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

User BlessSins is suggesting that Ibn Warraq is not a RS. I'd appreciate your contribution in this debate and help refute this unusual claim. thanks --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm also still waiting for you to give your reply on Faith Freedom International. Also take a look here. UNDUE does not apply anymore. Am I correct? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please be aware in the future that WP:TPG#Editing comments only allows you to remove others comments if they are a personal attack. Please refraim from doing so again in the future as you did here and here. WP:NOT#SOAP does not say you have the right to remove soapboxing comments. Only soapboxing material in articles, categories, templates, etc. should be removed. See Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.--Sefringle 18:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

it is standard wiki practice to remove comments from talk pages which may be trolling, using the page as a vehicle for one's own soapboxing or propaganda, or anything else which constitutes baiting or counter-productive to appropriate use of the talk page. the section on TPG you cite refers to altering people's comments. ITAQALLAH 18:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't quite agree with that interpretation, Sefringle. Some talk pages, notably Talk:Muhammad, have at times eroded to near zero functionality due to the high volume of irrelevant rants from all corners, which invariably inspire counter rants devolving into flame wars. The comments about the converts (although it strikes me as fallacious) isn't so bad as they go, but I don't have a big problem with its removal, either. The lists of Qur'anic verses should definitely have been removed. If this is allowed, then what happens next? Someone posts a list of verses which seem to contradict these and claim these to be the real teaching. etc. I have seen more or less this exact exchange played out on numerous occasions; it leads nowhere but to affirm that the talk page is the place to discuss our opinion on the general merits of Islam, and amounts to a dinner bell for trolls and fanatics.

As we're not discussing blocking users (in fact, removal of off-topic comments removes basis for blocking users,) there is no need to get sentimental. What we need to do is stand firm and together in insisting on topicality regardless of whether we personally sympathize with the off-topic remarks (indeed, I occasionally find myself upon reflection removing my own.)Proabivouac 19:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

i concur, and as such i have removed comments irrespective of what the viewpoint is[3]. ITAQALLAH 19:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

That a very typical example of the type of comment which should be removed; thank you for your vigilance.Proabivouac 19:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Itaqallah, please review these comments which I had removed only to be reverted.[4]Proabivouac 07:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

i would have removed the comment and the trolling it elicited, but as more replies have since occured, the issue of removal doesn't appear as clear cut. ITAQALLAH 19:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your vigilant action against this spam-only SPA, which only now came to my attention; I believe I have reverted all of it.Proabivouac 07:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've been meaning to get back to it, and will try to tomorrow. Marskell 18:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for removing the redirect from my page. --Nkv 14:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Salam alaykum. My dear friend, You merged this part in the God section without any discussion!!! I've put this comment Talk:Islam#Prophecy and divine Revelation for discussion:(--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

		The Barnstar of Constant Improvement
		Itaqallah, you have well-earned this award, and my respect, through your continuous improvement as an editor, as well as your charity to others (such as myself) who might likewise improve. Yours has evolved into one of the (too few) voices which suggest to me that Islam-related articles are not ever hopelessly a battleground.Proabivouac 09:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I second this Barnstar. Itaqallah has always been fair, reasonable and approachable, despite any disagreement on the content of edits. I enjoyed Itaqallah's edit comment here [5]. It was both humorous and accurate. --ProtectWomen 07:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you please summerize and add the following text from Britannica Encyclopedia: "Except in regard to the fundamental questions of the existence of God, Islamic revelation, and future reward and punishment, the juridical conditions for declaring someone an unbeliever or beyond the pale of Islam were so demanding as to make it almost impossible to make a valid declaration of this sort about a professing Muslim."

Source: Article: Islām. Britannica Encyclopedia": [6]

Thanks --Aminz 02:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

This might be also worthy of mentioning: "The status of the believer in Islam remained in practice a juridical question, not a matter for theologians or philosophers to decide...In the course of events in Islamic history, representatives of certain theological movements, who happened to be jurists and who succeeded in converting rulers to their cause, made those rulers declare in favour of their movements and even encouraged them to persecute their opponents. Thus there arose in some localities and periods a semblance of an official, or orthodox, doctrine." --Aminz 02:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

if this relates to defining what would have been considered "deviant" beyond tolerance, then i posted a comment about it on your talk page. ITAQALLAH 14:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thanks for your great efforts in Islam article which led to making a FA article. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) --03:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Salam alaykum. Please compare Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Assessment with Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria/Assessment. Can you improve the first one more?--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 01:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

i'll take a look. ITAQALLAH 08:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

In your edit here, you added honouriphics "Islamic prophet" Muhammad. Why? Honouriphics are not allowed here.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 10:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

it is not an honorific. to say he is a prophet may be POV, but to say he is an Islamic prophet (i.e. a prophet according to Islam) is factual, in the same way someone may be called a Jewish prophet or Christian prophet. ITAQALLAH 10:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

So, I should be seeing you changing all the "Muhammad"'s to "Islamic Prophet Muhammad" in Muhammad, correct? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

incorrect. the phrase is for establishing context, and so only needs to occur for the first mention of Muhammad. once that's been done, we can simply refer to him as Muhammad. ITAQALLAH 13:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I dont see any "establishment of context" in Muhammad.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

the lead does that quite nicely. ITAQALLAH 17:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

And ofcourse you know about this which says There are several honorifics for Muhammad which should generally not be used in articles. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

we aren't talking about honorifics. ITAQALLAH 17:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Guess it depends on whether you think it conceivable anyone could get to this point in this article, (or life) without knowing who Muhammad was (since I doubt there is a risk we might be thought as referring to another Muhammad). Not honorific (that would be just "prophet" inclusion of Islamic is descriptive I think). Perhaps unnecessary. 50-50 call, so I can't give an opinion either way. --BozMo talk 14:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bozmo, thanks for your input. Itaq, ok I got your point now but I agree with Karl who said that clarification is not needed. As the guidelines also say if there are two Muhammad's only then clarification is needed. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

i think the guide to writing better articles i linked above is quite clear. we shouldn't assume people will know who Muhammad is. they could always click on the wikilink to find out, but it is appropriate to have a succinct description in other articles also, and there's no reason to believe they will have found an article like Imran ibn Husain by extensive on-wiki exploration, as opposed to searching for it on the internet and finding the page directly. ITAQALLAH 17:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

You supported my candidacy in my recently completed request for adminship. The debated ended 40/4/1 and I'm now an administrator. I'd just like to say thanks for taking the time to consider me, and thanks for the confidence in me. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Regards, WilyD

Thanks for your attention on Bahram Soroush on your edit here which lead me to discover that he's pretty notable to have his own article. Feel free to put in some more third party references there if you find any. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Assalamu-aleikum,

I created the Sunni template, and I definitely agree that lots of the beliefs section was Sunni vs Shia oriented, however I was unsure how to approach it without that. To say a belief is to essentially say where it differs from other beliefs (ie, reincarnation over other after death beliefs). While I certainly saw that section as competitive, when it comes to defining Sunnism, I'm afraid we may actually have to define it in conjunction with Shi'asm, ie, what it is and what it is not.

So, we have to mention that the Sahaba play an important part, and we have to mention the idea of the Rashidun Caliphs (even if this idea is not doctrinally requirable for one to be a Sunni). But, I won't touch anything until I hear what you think we should do regarding Sunni beliefs. Till then, I'll add to the template in other areas. --Enzuru 19:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

the six key Sunni beliefs can be seen here. also see {{Aqidah}}. ITAQALLAH 19:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I added those. Problem is those are extremely vague, almost all Islamic sects agree with most, if not all of those statements. I have that in the template now, but it still does not in actuality define Sunnism as it is, and that's what is disappointing. --Enzuru 20:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is, I'm afraid, quite accurate. Arrow740 02:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not sure. Isn't pedophilia, at least as defined by Wikipedia, about attraction not action? I am struggling for the accurate term... "Sexual involvement of children in marriage"? The same issue exists around the Mormon church but I cannot find how it is treated there... not at all I think. --BozMo talk 06:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Itaqallah. As you have participated at the ANI discussion regarding the behaviour of the abovementioned user, i just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on themselves in response to the concerns raised during the discussion at the ANI. The RfC is located here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Asalamu'alaykum,
Pleace check out MuslimWiki!

He is definitely an antidhimmi, check out [7], [8], [9]. Arrow740 20:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

what does 'antidhimmi' mean? his main sphere seems to be Hinduism, with one sentence about his aversion to Islamism. how is a spam of select authors appropriate here? See also sections aren't really areas for every personality who agrees with him on one matter or another, it's for links directly related to the subject topic. ITAQALLAH 20:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

He wrote a book about the danger of high Muslim birthrates and forced conversions in India. Please look at the links I provided. Arrow740 21:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

i did look at the links. i don't believe your response addresses my above comment. ITAQALLAH 21:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Given his works, putting other people concerned about Islam in the "see-also" section is appropriate. Arrow740 21:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes, I just really fucking hate people... -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 03:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

See WP:ANI#User:The Anonymous One blocked 72 hours, should we make it indef?Proabivouac 15:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm not really around until Monday morning (earliest) so if it seems very disruptive, I recommend you post to WP:ANI asap. This user has a checkered history (see his block log) and often seems to fail to comprehend why his editing is offensive/disruptive. If he is being seriously disruptive once more, the consequences could be very serious. --Dweller 23:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

civility kid? come on now, you got me banned and now you trying to say sorry for it. what's done is done kid, you banned me, no need to apologize. you shot first and asked the questions later cuz I'm guessing that's how you are. sorry to say this but if you're gonna be going around banning people on their first day without any explainations at least be straight up and honest about it. I would have more respect for you if you were to of been like "hey buddy I don't like your views so I'm banning you for good. now get lost off of wikipedia.", at least then you would of been straight up and honest. instead of this banning me without any explaination, then waiting a day to play coy with this "oh sorry man didn't mean to ban you like that." as for kufi smacking, it's slang homie, guess you aint familar with Dipset, Jim Jones or Killa Cam, it means to expose someone as a fake. now if I've offended you then I'm sorry but yeah with those links about civility on wikipedia, it doesn't help much with you sending that out to me when you haven't practiced what you preached. next time please for everyone's sake, please be more honest when you're going around banning and blocking people. I've had enough of this. peace. --EuroBrydGang

Um, Kufi smacker means more than merely exposing someone as a fake.Proabivouac 22:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Salam alaikum brother, I have been watching (Wiki-stalking oh noes!) your work on here for quite some time. I don't have any one specific article to note but on the whole I feel that you've been one of the more objective brothers on here. Please do keep up the good work, and keep in touch. The downside to this complement is that it means there will probably be times inshaAllah where I bug you for help in editing. MezzoMezzo 00:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm flattered by the barnstar. I think you're making me to be a little more than I am but regardless, thank you for the complement.  :) MezzoMezzo 18:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Salam. Can you please check this article. I found it terrible. Some parts of it like Practical Differences Between Sunnis and Shi'ahs looks irrelevant, also nothing has been written about Umayyads era. It suffered from lack of reference and and incorrect information. God bless you--Sa.vakilian(t-c) --04:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please also take a look at this strange article Sargis_Bkheera. --- A. L. M. 07:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

What policy disallows creating a watchlist that contains articles with POV issues? If there's no such policy, please stop editing that watch list. I have planned to make multiple watchlists infact. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok look. I'm asking you the policy that forbids making a watchlist of articles with POV issues. You gave me none so I assume there's none. Now: I can create a watchlist called Doodle-doo Watchlist and have all the articles I want to watch in that list. If thats allowed, what problems do you have with this certain watch list? The Kaaba article was having issues. People were deleting pictures of Muhammad ([10]), deleting statements that a source could be find easily for ([11]). This is enough. If you want, I can create a new list and call it the Doodle-Doo watchlist. You're makings things unnecesserily difficult. Its not going to work, trust me. The Controversy list is there to prevent and watch over POV vandalism and here's some more: ([12]). I was thinking infact of making different watchlists for Controversial/POV issues articles. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please dont cite policies that dont apply whatsoever. For your cited CANVASS (if thats the best you could do, then surely there's nothing that can stop a watchlist):

Canvassing (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting") is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, and it is controversial.

How am I "overtly soliciting the opinions of other users on their talk pages"? Thats struck down.

You wrote:

so basically the page is there to attract a limited audience (how many people out of the total wiki-community do you think actually look at this page?)

The page is public. Anyone can access it. There is no "limited audience" here. I dont know what your problem is with this page. As I told you already, I can create 50 watchlists for various articles to classify the watchlists. There is no policy against this. What is the watchlist there for? Its for watching the articles. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

In addition, how many people look at this page from the wiki-community? I can assure you they're less than the number of people who view that watchlist. Does that mean we should delete this page? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

So do you think thisis also inappropriate? This is the one I modelled our Wikiproject Islam's watchlists on. Dont make me quote you. Just apply the same policies you applied to both watchlists and tell me that the one I linked here should also be deleted. This watchlist isnt going anywhere, as you can probably predict. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is a watchlist, I'm not advertising "any content disputes". How is this then not an act of advertising a content dispute? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm creating a watchlist for articles I want to watch. Thats not against policy. There's nothing you can do here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

You'll have to AfD the list if you want it gone. Dont ask editors of your choosing. Again, this is a watchlist, thats all there is. Its for everyone to use because its public. Here's the thing ---> Its as much use to you as it is to me. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh and the biggest thing about the private watchlist: It only shows the last edit. 2) Its not team work. 3) A public watch list can be maintained by everyone and so it'll be of a higher quality. Remember your effort to delete the Islam and Controversy group? It didnt work. Niether will this. Why? Because foremost, all these are tools to help with better editing. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you can try it out. The private watchlist doesnt do it. These watchlists are like a specialized "Recent changes" for the articles we choose. I'll just create my own watchlist as its bound to get to a point where people are going to add in their own articles. You can check the other watchlists I made. See how useful this is? For example, this is a public page for the prophets in Islam. USeful stuff. I caught that Hajjar guy doing his vandalism in an instant from the use of this list. And again if you got any doubt, this list is as useful to me as it is to you. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sargis Bahirâ, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sargis Bahirâ. Thank you. -- Merope 18:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is there a template that reads, "This discussion page may consist mostly or only of trolling"? I'm not entirely convinced that our new anti-depictions editor is for real, either.Proabivouac 00:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

i don't know of such a template. whatever the case is with regards to the new editors (authentic or otherwise), this really has to stop. ITAQALLAH 00:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Itaqallah, I have bad news. Apparently nobody has bothered to inform you that you were reported for 3RR, or you've been blocked.[13] In my opinion, this is an error, and I've said so. What makes it so poisonous - besides the general unfairness - is that you've been so careful to obtain consensus and reflect that consensus in your edits. In particular, I can't for the life of me understand why the first diff was included in this complaint.Proabivouac 05:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

He was revert warring with Sefringle and myself. He needs to follow WP:3RR like the rest of us, your opinion of him notwithstanding. Arrow740 06:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

He did follow it. The pith of 3RR is that all the diffs must be part of an edit-war.Proabivouac 06:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

There have been edit-wars about the same issue in the past. Arrow740 07:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

• re: [14] - that's a reasonable point.. the link given by Mister.Manticore had a few instances of the phrase in inverted commas, referring to a specific type of bias (if i recall correctly, one article said 'Is there a "Flying while Muslim" bias?'). but anyway, i will probably retract my !vote once i'm able. ITAQALLAH 15:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The article you've nominated for GA, Battle of Uhud is now a GA article! Impressive work!!! --Aminz 08:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

That is cool. It was GA article long time ago too. Right? --- A. L. M. 08:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Maybe. But Itaqallah throughly revised it and added academic sources. --Aminz 08:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes it is great effort by Itaqallah. --- A. L. M. 08:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

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

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

---

Request reason:

I was reported for 3RR here. The first cited revert wasn't part of a revert war, it was the uncontroversial undoing of a basic factual error as per editorial consensus, as already expressed by another editor on AN3. What is cited as the forth revert was not so: it was a suggested compromise which moved the text downwards into the relevant section about civil status — it undid nothing. In fact, it was a compromise Arrow740 initially accepted. The fifth diff after that was some of my own copyediting (not to mention consecutive with and straight after what is cited as the fourth revert) - I was certainly not aware that I was undoing something as far back as June 16th. I count two reverts, three if my relocation of the disputed text can be counted as a revert, but I really don't think that's the case.

Decline reason:

A revert is anything that undoes another editor's actions. Edit warring is always considered disruptive; while it may be difficult at times, please remember discussion is always a more preferred method of resolving edit conflicts. — Shell ^babelfish 18:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

---

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

Btw whatever decision an adminstration wishes to take. He should remember that this block is too harsh given that it is his first violation (if it is violation) since he joined wikipedia (more than a year ago). --- A. L. M. 14:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The fact is he violated the rule. The first revert was a revert on a topic where there has been considerable controversy. Further, I did not initially accept his compromise as he claimed, I said I would consider it. I meant to do so as a way to stop the edit warring. In any case it was certainly a revert as he again removed disputed text, this time placing it much lower down so as to be less prominent. Arrow740 16:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

the first edit was subject to long-standing consensus, let's not spuriously claim "considerable controversy" when there was clear consensus for it well before its Featured Article candidacy- and an issue upon which widespread and unequivocal agreement had been reached among us. to cite that as part of a revert war or dispute is rather disingenuous and is against the spirit of 3RR. lastly, i didn't remove the text— although there would have been no problem removing it as per the absense of consensus for this tendentious insertion— i relocated it as suggested numerous times on talk to its relevant section. you did indeed say you considered my edit as a compromise ("I will consider your shoving it down as a compromise for a little while."), until you found it expedient to tar my compromise attempt and copyedit as a revert. ITAQALLAH 17:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Arrow, is it right to then presume you support the inclusion of the words both "peace" and in the sentence (since you've listed the removal of it as the 1st violation)? To me it looks like Robert C Prenic (talk · contribs) was the sole voice in wanting to add this and once discussed in the talk page, Robert accepted the consensus view (of 3 editors) - infact apart from raising the issue Robert did not take part in the discussion. All Itaqallah did was uphold the consensus view. This was not an edit war. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 17:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply