User talk:Altetendekrabbe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

November 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Abdus Salam. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. CIreland (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I received your email. I am not unsympathetic to your concerns but what both and Somnat1 must do is outline the rationale for your edits at Talk:Abdus Salam. Continual reverting isn't getting anywhere and discussion is the only viable course of action. CIreland (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi,

The reference that I posted on the Pakistani diaspora page, does indeed talk about Pakistanis and other nationalities, apart from the Bangladeshis, especially on Pages 131 & 132. I don't want to get into an edit war with you, so either you could undo the revision, or allow me to do it?

Cheers A Fantasy (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll do it. A Fantasy (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Kalbe Razi Naqvi

Hi Mustihussain,

What source do you need to prove somebody's nationality? A passport? Why don't you have a look at point 4 of your Contents box: Citizen of United Kingdom. People with UK citizenship are called British, aren't they?

The information that I put here came from the person himself. Can't you just leave this page as it was?

Cheers, Javorfi

--Javorfi (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you see, the thing is what he would prefer to see there. So I think I just change it back.

I used to work at NTNU and still go back there time to time.

Thanks. --Javorfi (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your user page

I would like to ask. Do you want your user page deleted? It appears that you tried to erase it, however, that does not delete it. Please get back to me and let me know whether or not you want it deleted. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 17:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

Mustihussain, you've reverted the article Race and intelligence 4 times in the last 10 hours, which is technically a violation of Wikipedia's three revert rule. I strongly suggest that you take your edits to the article's talkpage before reverting again. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Mustihussain: we are trying to get some consensus on a very difficult revision of a very difficult article. If you want to contribute, please communicate on the talk page, but please don't disrupt an already fragile discussion process. thanks. --Ludwigs2 14:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the talk page of the Race and Intelligence article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence

Please note the comment I just left at Ludwigs2' talk page. You should also conssult th mssage David Kane left on the Race and Intelligence talk page, when he finished making his edits. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What is critical is that any of your edits must stringently conform with our core content policies (which, if you do not know, you should go over carefully); WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. There are two correlaries tha most users get tripped up by: WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYNTH. As long as your edits comply stringently with these policies, are well-written and put in the appropriate plac within the appropriate article, you should feel conident about your editing. If someone thinks you made a bad edit, just remind them that the article talk page is the appropriate place to discuss disagreements, and that they need to show how your edit violates one of our core content policies. Good Wikipedians will be glad to discuss it with you on the article talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

See also this discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

SLR makes some excellent points above. However, please note that consensus is one of the wp:five pillars of wikipedia, and consensus means that you need to discuss changes with other editors where there are difficulties of conflicts. again, please read wp:BRD. thanks. --Ludwigs2 15:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD is indeed very important here. If someone reverts you, my advice is this: start a section on the talk page of the article in question. Summarize your edit, and why you believe you are not violating NPOV, V, or NOR. Ask anyone if they believe you are violating any of these core content policies, and if so, how. Tell people you will welcome suggestions about how to phrase your edit and here to put it (i.e. improve the style). Wait a day or two, but at least 36 hours, and then if no one has any objections, make your edit again. If someone has objections, respond to them - seriously, and collegially. This is all part of collaborative editing which is wht Wikipedia is all about. But once you have responded to all objections by improving your proposed edit, edit the article again. My point: once reverted, take it to the talk page of the article and discuss it in a constructive and cooperative way, welcoming suggested improvements. Once discussion is over, then make your edit again. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If it helps any, I think that is excellent advice. Just so long as we are all on the same page (figuratively speaking - I know we're all literally on the... oh, never mind). --Ludwigs2 17:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Flynn

If you want to insert a point that Flynn has made, you ned to find the book or article in which Flynn made the point. One reason is that journalists like Gladwell sometimes misrepresent their sources. Another reason is that Gladwell takes Flynn's quotes out of context. That is, he provides whatever context suits the point Gladwell wishes to make in his article. We too are going to take a quote from Flynn out of its context - but we need to go over the original context - in what context Flynn wrote what he wrote - to make sure we provide as much context as our article needs. Finally, this is an encyclopedia and we must use reliable sources, see my comment above. In this case the appropriate source for a point by Flynn is the book or article where Flynn made the point.

If you have the appropriate source and context, most people will not object to your adding it to the article. But they may object to where you place it in the article3 as poor style. It is a good idea to start a discussion on the talk page to gain consensus about how to incorporate the point into the article. This is consensus based (collaborative) editing, which is how we do things here. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Abdus Salam

Is Sweden not also correct? All except Peace is given in Sweden. So stating Sweden will give a greater scope of 'first'. Waiting for your views before I change it. Thank You Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

yes, it is correct but it looks corny. so what if he is the first muslim to receive a nobel prize from sweden? much more important to state that he is the first muslim nobel prize winner in physics/science. you see what i mean? mentioning sweden looks strange, at least from scandinavia. mustihussain 19:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok i get you, what about the word 'science' or 'academics'? Peaceworld111 (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

science or physics. academics is a much broader term.mustihussain 19:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok , sciences done Peaceworld111 (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

nutrition

First, create a separate section on the talk page - the point you are bringing up has nothing to do with Muntuwand's point, so people will think you are either disingenuous or trying to derail discussion. Create a separate section.

Then, summarize the points people gave for deleting you.

Then, provide your response to those objections.

Then, show how your proposed edit complies with the core content policies.

Then see how people respond. If no one objects in 36 hours, then put your proposed edit in. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent advice! By the way, I have refractored things a bit to provide an Environment section in which such nutrition issues would naturally fit. Hope that helps. David.Kane (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the advice. i have already created a nutrition section on the talk page and no one has responded. the arguments against having nutrition section in the main article do not hold at all as long as lynn's "world wide data" is given. for example lynn claims that the average iq in south asia is 84. now, i can provide you with references (e.g. http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/16-twothirds-of-schoolchildren-iodine-deficient-report-hs-07) that show that almost 70% of pakistanis suffer from iodine deficiencies. this in turn causes a fall of 13 iq points! to add this fact is totally reasonable! mustihussain 21:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

People will question whether this meets out WP:RS guidelines. The point is clearly relevant. But by what methodology was it determined that the deficiency led to a 13 pt. drop? Causality iis pretty hard to establish, did they have large double-blind tests? You see, the methodology would be explained in a peer-reviewed journal article. But in a speech given by an official, we have no idea what the methodology was, or whether it was approved via peer-review. So if this came from a peer-reviewed journal article i would say you are on strong grounds indeed, but this source is not going to meet everyone's standards and even you must admit it is not a great source. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

one example of a study that shows similar results: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15734706 . there are several others for sure. the drop of 10 to 15 iq points is mentioned everywhere the topic is discussed (e.g. http://www.nootropics.com/iodine/index.html or http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/opinion/04kristof.html?_r=2).mustihussain 14:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

numbers do not speak for themselves

I appreciate your help. Would you mind reading over the article specifically to look for other passages where numbers are being thrown around as if they spoke for themselves, and where nmore context is needed? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 01:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

i think the i&r piece could be improved significantly if lynn's "findings" are discussed in a critical way. for example, the claim that sub-saharan african populations have an average iq of 67 has to be discussed. according to theory an iq of 67 implies mental retardation. now, the fact is that the average person in sub-saharan africa is not mentally retarded (it would be retarded to claim so!). clearly, there is either something wrong with the data or with theory! lynn's data has to be scrutinized, and flynn has indeed reported flaws in lynn's accounting methods. on the other hand we have the prodigious increase of the dutch iq. as flynn notes:

"if iq tests really tap into a fundamental aspect of intelligence, says flynn, the implications of this trend are staggering. in the netherlands, for instance, the 30-year increase implies that about one-quarter of the population qualifies as mentally gifted, with iqs of at least 130. those with iqs over 150 have increased almost 60-fold since 1952--a jump that translates into 300,000 potential geniuses. "the result should be a cultural renaissance too great to be overlooked,' maintains flynn. there are, of course, no indications of such a dramatic leap forward in thought" http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v132/ai_5160849/

again, something is wrong.

also, flynn's newest book claims that the reported average iq of asians/asian americans is inflated(http://www.amazon.com/Asian-Americans-Achievement-Beyond-Iq/dp/0805811109). i think a critique of accounting methods has to be included in the r&1 article, in addition, a section about statistical methods has to be added. being a natural scientist, i don't trust racial theorists (like jensen, lynn) disguised as sociologists. mustihussain 15:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

On Tuesday

could you see if this argument could benefit from your views? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

i have looked at the discussion. it seems that captain o. has already added some more text to the main article (tending, as ususal, to favor the hereditarian stance, lolz!). my main concern now is that the article is beginning to look like a showcase for lynn, jensen and other fringe "scientists". could you please provide me your e-mail address?mustihussain 02:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

slrubenstein at yahoo dot com

Style suggestion

I find using inflammatory terms such as vandalizing offends editors and encourages real vandals. The edit summaries cannot be edited, so you may like to avoid using such terms in the edit summaries in particular. Edit summaries are visible in the history long after issues have been resolved and normal edits have been archived. Stephen B Streater (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

Hi. Whilst you are clearly reverting unhelpful edits at this article, you have also broken WP:3RR as the edits are not clearly vandalism. Whilst I'm not going to block you this time (I have blocked the IP), please take such incidents to the edit-warring noticeboard in future. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 18:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

ok, thanks. but the ip should be blocked forever. just look at the racist remarks he made.--mustihussain 18:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Altetendekrabbe. You have new messages at IRP's talk page.
Message added 22:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- IRP ☎ 22:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleting your user page

I'm sorry if I did not make myself clear, but what I meant to say was: to delete your user page, please insert {{db-u1}} on the top of your user page (not user talk page, which is what you are currently viewing). Note that it will not delete immediately. An administrator will have to approve of the deletion first, then it will be deleted. If you need, I can do it for you this time to show you how. Just please let me know. Thank you. -- IRP ☎ 22:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you appear to have given up, I have done it for you this time, but hopefully you will know the procedure next time. Thank you. -- IRP ☎ 22:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

hello, no i haven't given up..! i changed my mind!--mustihussain 22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The only content was a misplaced November 2008 talk message. If you want it to be restored, say so here and I'll do that. – Athaenara ✉ 22:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

you don't have to. it's ok. thanks.--mustihussain 22:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. – Athaenara ✉ 22:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

RFAR Race and intelligence

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Your signature

Hello. It appears that your signature [1] doesn't meet the requirements outlined in the signature guideline. In part, it specifically states that "signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page." That's why SineBot doesn't recognize it and considers your talk page edits unsigned. Please update your signature accordingly. Thanks, Huon (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.
• The following editors are topic-banned from race and intelligence articles, broadly construed:
  • Mathsci (by consent)
  • David.Kane
  • Captain Occam
  • Mikemikev
• Mikemikev, who was indefinitely blocked as a result of an ANI discussion during the case proceedings, is site-banned for 12 months. Until his ArbCom ban expires, he may only appeal his block to the Arbitration Committee, via the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. After 12 months, he may choose to appeal the ban to either the Arbitration Committee or to the community.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

NW (Talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Removal of an AfD template from Farooq Azam

Please do not remove AfD templates from articles listed for deletion discussions, as you did here[2] for the Farooq Azam article. The deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farooq Azam, is still open. If you disagree with the nomination, you are welcome to express your opinion in the deletion discussion. However, only the administrator closing the discussion may remove the AfD template from the article. Removal of the template while the AfD discussion is still open is considered disruptive and may lead to your account being blocked. Nsk92 (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

i wasn't aware of that. thanks for informing me.-- mustihussain (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict

Please do not use my talk page for conflicting opinions about the above article. Denisarona (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

i'm sorry. dbigxray is spreading lies about me. i had to respond.-- mustihussain (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		I noticed you've been continuously defending against POVs and preventing vandalism and hate speach and bias against Pakistan. :) lTopGunl (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Mustihussain by lTopGunl (talk) on 06:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

ISI

Hey. Could you please comment on this part of ISI talk page? This user is trying to push some POV. He's started a reliable sources dispute to deviate from the topic (as visible from the discussion on that talk page mentioned). [3]. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

that article has several and more serious issues (possible copyright violations, wp:or, wp:coatrack) and needs a full overhaul. you can start with going through content that you suspect is copy-pasted and check with the sources. if copyright violations are found, tag the section. the "activities in balochistan"-section looks like a copyright violating-festered hole. i would also say it is a WP:COATRACK-attempt. try to investigate these issues first. read the wp:coatrack policy.-- mustihussain (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

but fix your edit at "operation trident"-page first.-- mustihussain (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Re-written from scratch. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

good, much better. continue to work with yourself and your edits. just a few comments. make the following changes: destroyed-> destroying, loss->losses. also just delete the "to missile boats by moving them away from the obvious targets"-sentence. redundant and repetitive. cite both of your sentences.-- mustihussain (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the grammar. The source is the same for the whole paragraph, so at the end. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

still, it's better to cite more than less. it's a good habit to have. better safe than sorry. also, you need to use indentation-marks more.-- mustihussain (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Got it. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You've been mentioned

You've been mentioned in one of the defending comments on this complaint section against User:Swift&silent. Perhaps it is of your concern, so thought of notifying you. See [4] --lTopGunl (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Islam in Europe

i'm sorry i reverted you uncautiously, you're absolutely right about the freedom of religion section and the esther pan stuff. it's just that it appeared that you removed the wikileaks story from the daily mail, which i think needs to be in there, and is supported by the source. maybe i got mixed up in the series of diffs. anyway, i'm sorry, and thanks for taking care of that.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

the daily mail story was removed by User:John.stevenson3. center for social cohesion (csc) is clearly not a neutral source [5], and wikileaks are not reliable.  mustihussain  17:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

agreed that wikileaks isn't reliable, but the daily mail reporting on wikileaks is reliable. anyway, i'm sorry i got mixed up about who removed what, and thanks for fixing it.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

no problem. mustihussain  17:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

RSN Issue.

Hi, this editor, dbigxray, is continuously disrupting the RSN even after a neutral editor provided an in-depth analysis. [6] He has been forum shopping from quite some time. His attitude on all articles is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and baselessly argues either without references or with the ones that contradict the neutral sources. I reported him once for wiki stalking and we were told to stay away from each other's talk page. Do you think reporting him again will do any good? --lTopGunl (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

yes, but be brief and to the point. prove that there exists a pattern. e.g. he began his disruptive edits on the "first indo-pakistani war" *after* a single edit by you [7] [8] [9]. i guess you're aware of numerous such examples. use them in your case. properly. make sure to mention that you, following the recommendation of the an/i-board, tried to stay away from dbigxray, but to no avail as he stalks you. the stalking has to be demonstrated *clearly* by the examples given by you. take your time.-- mustihussain  17:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Will sort this out in time as a report will need regular responses on my part. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

you don't need to respond every time. in fact, it's counterproductive to spam the an/i-page with comments if your case is solid.-- mustihussain  12:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Was just trying to counter his forumshopping attempts. Will not reply now (on the RSN). You might need to keep Operation Chengiz Khan in your watch list for some time since he's trying to add content against an established consensus from the Indo-Pak wars and conflicts page. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

keep track of his edits, especially his genuine forum shopping attempts, and edits that reveal his stalking.-- mustihussain  12:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll let him have the benefit of doubt and report on a clearer violation and add this previous record for a stronger case. I'm sure he wont stop at this. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Heads-up: [10] This user is a canvassed user by dibigxray making edits on Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts. I'm counting dibigxray, swift&silent and this user's point of views as a single since the latter 2 are canvassed. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

[11] Would you mind closing this discussion with {{discussion top}} & {{discussion bottom}} since my doing so will flame an edit war with dbigxray. He has commented here after a week not listening to the consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

just ignore the drama. all the major points are already presented. there are many important articles that you might improve instead of wasting your time on the noticeboard.-- mustihussain  17:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

His misquoting usually leads editors to think of the consensus as he quoted which he then quotes back on talk with reasons to edit the articles. Kind of going in circles. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't use blogs as sources

In [12] this biased edit you used a blog as a source. This fails WP:RS. Pass a Method talk 10:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

what blog? name it.-- mustihussain  11:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The blog in this link Pass a Method talk 11:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

man, you need glasses. i didn't add any blog source. all the sources were already there. stop making baseless allegations.-- mustihussain  11:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If so, then where is your evidence that dhimmitude is a myth? Pass a Method talk 12:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

what you completely fail to comprehend is that the "blog source" you're referring to actually displays an article from the american scholar - volume 75 no. 1 winter 2006 pp. 25-36..it's veeery easy is to verify (if you had your glasses on). in that article bernard lewis speaks of two myths, one of them being the myth of "dhimmitude". understand? or should i proceed even sloooower? in addition, the dhimmitude-article also includes a quote from lewis from the very same source. embarrassing, isn't it? -- mustihussain  12:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Noteceboard for edit warring

I have reported you here Pass a Method talk 18:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

nice try, but you'll get banned yourself.-- mustihussain  18:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

lol. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

lol, yeah maybe.-- mustihussain  18:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Referring to other user's edits as vandalism

Hi. Please learn the definition of vandalism at WP:NOTVAND, and do not use it for good faith contributions as it's uncivil and incorrect. If you're still feeling weak-kneed, check out WP:DV for a better explanation. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

2011-11 gift

If you can read norvegian language: a gift. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks, i'll read it.-- mustihussain  22:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Why have you deleted 16 books and 1 article supporting the Eurabia thesis? Some of them are in my own opinion good summaries. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

it was totally undue. we're not supposed to give an exhausted list with every book on the subject, a list that is as long as the article itself. btw, what about the map? isn't it more appropriate to put it in the rebuttal section where the "muslim demographic"-video is debunked?-- mustihussain  22:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Islamophobia criticism section

Hi Mustihussain,

I'm sure you mean well, but I'm not sure you've fully understood WP:NPOV. You can't remove reliably sourced material from an article simply because you disagree with the author of it. No further expurgation of the criticism section will be possible without prior consensus. Please ensure that you get that. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

what are you talking about? to summarize a quote into a sentence is not removal of material... make sure you read before making allegations.-- mustihussain  06:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Your separation of the material, moving it down the article, and removing the quote simply will not stand. Please accept that WP:NPOV is fundamental policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

now, you've changed your allegations. good, at least they're not that nonsensical. -- mustihussain  07:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Norwegians with Pakistani background

Hi Mustihussain, I had added information about Adil Khan and Deeyah on the above mentioned page, which has been removd by you, can I know the reason, please. RegardsJogibaba (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

the reason is given in the edit summary. you added unsourced content. provide your sources.-- mustihussain  10:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

do you mean, I should add the refrences to justify those claims, which I did not because there are a lot of references on their respective pages. As you are from Norway, you must have read a lot about these two person, especially Adil Khan who is, now a days, so much in media because of the NRK serial named, Taxi which sent its last episode on last Monday. Are you suggesting that that I can add those lines again while giving the references.--Jogibaba (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

yes, add your content back with sources. assessments like khan is an "acclaimed theatre actor and is one of the most popular mainstream screen actors in norway" or that deeyah "is among the very few norwegians of immigrant decent known internationally" seem like original research to me.-- mustihussain  11:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

In 2006, one of Deeyah's music videos was used as part of an art exhibition at The Stedelijk Museum where leading national and international theorists, critics and artists address topical issues in contemporary visual cultur In 2009 Deeyah was awarded with the international Freedom to Create Prize alongside Cont Mhlanga, The Zimbabwean playwright and Belarus Free Theatre for What Will It Be and Sisterhood.[40 this is what made me write that.Do you think this was exaggerationan. And what about Adil Khan. As you are from Norway, you must have noticed his presences in Norway. Regards--Jogibaba (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

what you wrote above does not mention that deeyah "is among the very few norwegians of immigrant decent known internationally". hence, original research. like i suspected. you should rather stick to what the sources say and mention the awards she won instead. regarding khan, my opinions about him do not matter at all. what matters is what secondary reliable sources say. if they say that he's an "acclaimed theatre actor and is one of the most popular mainstream screen actors in norway" then fine. if not, it's original research.-- mustihussain  11:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad

Hi, you're right that the version I restored sounds like it contains POV material. The reason I reverted was more because the edits broke references, and because the new material seemed unsourced. Of course that doesn't mean that the existing material is necessarily cleanly sourced ... I haven't looked at it in detail, or checked it against the indicated sources, but I am concerned about some of the wordings I restored, too, looking at them in more detail. Please come and help us sort it out. Note that there also ongoing discussions on the images talk page. Regards, --JN466 02:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

will do.-- mustihussain  23:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Altetendekrabbe. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 17:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Watchlist

You might like to use this script for the over growing watchlist. Works with Enhanced recent changes enabled from preferences. Here is a description and an example on the use. Anything for lesser watchlist stress, eh? --lTopGunl (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

great, i'll give it a try.-- mustihussain  17:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Highlights pages of choice. Working great with me. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Another sock?

User:Elitedrago is making the same edits on Lahore article as the banned sock User:AnwarInsaan. I don't know of his other editing habbits, maybe you can give a check... he just started though. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

too early to make any judgements but i'll keep an eye on him.-- altetendekrabbe  14:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, ok. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:RSN - Siasat on Ahmadiyya

Hi. I'm responding to a query on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, about a disagreement about the use of Siasat as a reliable source for some lines in the article Ahmadiyya. There were some unfortunate words written, but hopefully we can put that behind us and discuss the issue more civilly. Can we discuss the source at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Siasat_on_Ahmadiyya? Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Gilgit-Baltistan

Could you explain this revert on the talk page or somewhere else? I don't understand what you're objecting to and why. Shrigley (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Attia Bano Qamar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Attia Bano Qamar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attia Bano Qamar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Accusations

A heads up for these accusations... I'm confident there isn't even an appearance of canvassing here, just "I don't like it, so I'll admin-shop". --lTopGunl (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2012

Please see Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics#Assessments for Pakistan related articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2012. Participation appriciated. Drop a note to other interested active editors you know. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

i'll have a look.-- altetendekrabbe  13:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Islamic-Jewish Relations Dispute

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Islamic-Jewish Relations". Thank you. 67.247.19.21 (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of WP:COATRACK as an argument

Hello. Your edit here caught my attention. You removed the support section but left criticism, using WP:COATRACK as the argument in your edit summary. You assume that collecting supporting views for the site is coatrack, but not colleting criticism. I ask you to reconsider your stance. Both views are important for achieving neutral point of view. --Pudeo' 20:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ankh.Morpork 10:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Pork pov

how now thinks your my sock he needs to be stopped :/ Spacech45 (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

lol! let the porky make a fool out of himself. i also suspect that he is infact a sockpuppet. follow his edits, and note the right-wing idiots who supports him.-- altetendekrabbe  15:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Malik Shabazz, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Ankh.Morpork 16:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Please revert your latest attack at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Henrik.karlstrom or I will block you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Altetendekrabbe. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 16:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 day for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

i am wrongly accused of being a sock of user henrikkarlsrom here [13], and i need to defend myself. clearly the person dunno what he/she is talking about altetendekrabbe 21:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You don't defend yourself from a sockpuppet investigation by making personal attacks on the reporter. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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).

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

---

Request reason:

i have wrongly been accused of being henrikkarlstrom here [14]. i need to defend myself against these false claims.

Decline reason:

You may present your defense here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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

ok, jpgordon could you please give a 2. opinion by looking into what the checkuser found? i can assure you that i'm not henrikkarlstrom. i have googled up his name and it seems that henrikkarlstrom lives almost 500 km away from me (if you travel by plane in a straight line that is). if you want i can mail you my details, just provide me your e-mail. user benjamil has made some remarks but user "elen of the roads", the user who has wrongly branded me as henrikkarlstrum, remains silent.-- altetendekrabbe  03:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the evidence again, and am prepared to undo the sock block, as I now think it is a false positive. However, you will remain blocked until Malik Shabbaz's block expires (in two and a half hours). Also, I must point out that if you continue the behaviour that earned you that block, you are likely to find yourself blocked again, so please moderate your comments to avoid this happening. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

ok, thanks.-- altetendekrabbe  17:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

For what?

[15] I had nothing to do with that SPI, and you were blocked as a confirmed sock puppeteer when I looked at the SPI. I will give you some advice though, Elen told you to stop with the personal attacks, calling Ankh a sock is one. Maybe you should take a day off to calm down. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

dude, do u remember "atomspan2", the single-purpose account who was making personal attacks on my page? do you remember reverting him/her? i thanked you for that.-- altetendekrabbe  14:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I thought you were on about the sock allegations. I do not think you are socking for what that is worth. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

no prob, bob. why should i sock anyways? i like to fight (and swear). now, i'm off for a beer or two. later.-- altetendekrabbe  15:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hr for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Unfortunately, you seem to have caught the attention of banned User:JarlaxleArtemis. I will keep an eye on your pages. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

thanks. could you also ban the racist ip-accounts indefinitely? they're banned for a week but that's totally inadequate. probably socks of the same user [16]

As a rule, we don't indef-block IP accounts - among other reasons, because they are often dynamic IPs that aren't the same user from one day to another. These attacks happen when JarlaxleArtemis (because he's a coward) goes on 4chan /b/ and asks random users to post the attacks. A lot of the time, they are so stupid that they include the command "Place the following in the large text box" in the attempted vandalism. Consider it a badge of honor. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Islamophobia

Please explain why you want to include Eurabia in Template:Islamophobia on the talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Your recent editing history at Eurabia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Estlandia (dialogue) 11:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Kuru (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not see any vandalism as claimed in your edit summaries at Eurabia; this appears to be a simple edit war. Kuru (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

please note users like estlandia. they are tag-teaming to push through their political agenda. if "eurabia" is not an islamophobic conspiracy theory then what is? please, check their edits.-- altetendekrabbe  12:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Altetendekrabbe - when you get into an edit war, it is best to use the talk page to explain your edits. When you do this, you find that other people agree with you.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

i agree, but i lose my patience with certain editors here on wiki who are tag-teaming. please keep an eye on pages like eurabia, islamophobia and so on.-- altetendekrabbe  13:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not tag-teaming with anyone, I'd never ever met the other users who reverted you.Estlandia (dialogue) 13:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have partially reverted your edit to the article on Eurabia.[17] If you feel that your exact wording is best, please argue the case in the talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

why did you do that? it was *not* my wording to begin with. check the edit history. the academic sources are *clear*: eurabia is an islamophobic conspiracy theory. suggest you revert back to the original version i.e. the version that existed before the edit war. i am blocked and cannot argue on the talk page.-- altetendekrabbe  13:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Because I look for compromise in these situations. I do not know whether you are 100% right or not on this subject; but edit warring does not work in these situations. Discussion and compromise do work.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to strike the above violation of WP:NPA? If not, I will have no choice but to extend this block further (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Revert

I saw your revert here. I definitely agree with your revert, but I think you should leave a message behind on the talk page (esp. cause you said "see talk"). Even if you feel your message would be redundant, you should still leave a message. Discussion is how disputes are solved. Takk! :-) VR _talk 00:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

SPI

As noted in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mirahmet.hyraidabassa, the case has been renamed to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jose.medez248, so your evidence has been moved accordingly. Please submit any future evidence or comments at the new location. Thank you ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit war over Eurabia

Your resumption of the edit war over Eurabia has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Altetendekrabbe reported by User:Estlandia (Result: 24 hours).--Toddy1 (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Edits at Dhimmitude

Your edits to Dhimmitude were reverted because the essay from Bernard Lewis that you cite is essentially irrelevant to the article. Lewis was talking about dhimmitude in the past, not as it occurs today. Please do not reintroduce Lewis's essay to the article. Frotz (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Beer accepted

Best that a good head of beer spill over than disputes spill over. :-) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Altetendekrabbe. You have new messages at Elockid's talk page.
Message added 14:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya

3RR now, please stop, I'm reporting the editor who seems to be new. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

ok, thanks.-- altetendekrabbe  11:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added another message or two. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeringly (talk • contribs) 12:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Another update on the talk page for you. Kind regards (Steeringly (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC))

Talkback

Hello, Altetendekrabbe. You have new messages at Solarra's talk page.
Message added 13:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I was hoping you would pass comment on my suggested amendment to the article Ahmadiyya. Kind regards (Steeringly (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Dhimmitude. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Frotz, who reported Altetendekrabbe, had also violated 3RR at the time, but was not blocked. The user has actually since made a 5th revert in a 24 hour period, and no one has blocked or even warned him.VR _talk 21:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, nobody at AN/3RR will block for 3RR unless they have been appropriately warned ... why didn't you do it? = ✉→BWilkins←✎ 21:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

bwilkins, administrator itszippy acknowledges that frotz should have been banned as he also violated the 3-rr. frotz has now violated this rule almost twice! on top of that he is forcing sources that *don't* comply with wikipedia guidelines into the articles. how many policies must he violate before you take action? vice regent has removed most of the non-reliable sources but the mark durie source remains. -- altetendekrabbe  04:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

vice regent, i have just received the perlmutter-source which is used in the article. i'll come back to you after my block expires. we have a case for the npov-notceboard-- altetendekrabbe  04:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, is it necessary to warn a user so familiar with 3RR that he files his own 3RR reports? Can't you see what's going on here? Frotz is using 3RR as a tool to get Altetendekrabbe blocked, while he has made 5 reverts in 24 hours.

If admins refuse to block a user who edit wars, violates 3RR, on the basis that he "wasn't warned", then that is setting a terrible precedent.VR _talk 13:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you nuts?

[18] You just came off a block for this didn't you? Calm down man. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Do calm down. Wikipedia is built with patience and discussion, not edit-warring.VR _talk 23:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Kuru (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

can you please try to explain in a sensible way why you didn't block ankhmorpork as well? by the way, this amounts to hounding [19]. user frotz also got me blocked while he escaped with 5 reverts in less than 24 hours.-- altetendekrabbe  21:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If they were doing this, you could have reported them.

You are actually a valuable editor. But you have a history of edit-warring. The edit warring generates blocks, and makes neutral people lose patience with you. If you keep this up the blocks will get longer and longer. You will think it quite unfair if the other editor gets blocked for a day (or not at all) and you get blocked for a year, for doing exactly the same thing. Neither of us want this.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Toddy1 has given you a Pork pie. Pork pies are full of meaty goodness, and are wonderfully delicious! On Wikipedia, they promote love and sincerity. Hopefully, this one has made your day happier.

Spread the goodness and sincerity of pork pies by adding {{subst:Pork Pie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! Give one to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

thanks for your kind words, and that pork pie looks delicious!.-- altetendekrabbe  10:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Altetendekrabbe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

VolunteerMarek 16:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ankh.Morpork 13:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Dhimmi

You make some serious accusations about User:AnkhMorpork in these edits. I will block you if you don't retract them and apologize, unless you can produce examples in which he has misrepresented sources. I give you 24 hours in which to comply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik Shabazz (talk • contribs) 13:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

he did indeed misrepresent sources at the british-pakistani page [20]. the case was discussed on ani [21]. i *think* he is guilty of this also on the dhimmi-page. however, i'll retract the comment since you asked me to. btw, he *followed* my edits after the confrontation on the british-pakistani page, and began *edit warring* together with user shrike on the dhimmi-page. what are you gonna do about that? i have the diffs if you want.-- altetendekrabbe  14:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't see a pattern of "tag-team" edit-warring at Dhimmi. If you think it's a problem, please show me some diffs. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

sure, right after the british-pakistani conflict ankhmorpork reverted me on the dhimmi-page under the charge of vandalism [22], adding content from rodney stark, a fringe "scholar" [23], who whitewashes the crusaders' behavior towards muslims and jews, and who has weird ideas about evolution. clearly, ankhmorpork made a blind revert to take revenge as he was totally discredited and suffered a total fiasco on the british-pakistani issue. he then proceeded to post a bugos warning on my talk page[24]. the warning was subsequently removed by another user [25] who also warned ankmorpork not to misuse blocking templates[26]. ankmorpork made a 2. revert under another pre-text[27]. when i revert him again, shrike came out of nowhere and continued ankmorpork's edit war[28]. note that none of them had edited this page before. they began an edit war right after their fiasco on the british pakistani page where their attempt to associate the british-pakistani community with child abuse failed miserably.

edit warring, a clear violation of wp:brd, violation of wp:point... a classic example of tag-teaming. they displayed precisely the same behavior on the british pakistani-page as well. highly contentious content was forced into the article by user ankmorpork and user shrike by an edit war. note neither ankmorpork nor shrike had made any edits on that page before either. i can provide diffs if you want.

things calmed down for a month and then suddenly ankhmorpork began the edit war again [29], [30], joining hands with two other editors, frotz and estlandia, who also were re-adding stark. hence, violation of wp:brd and edit warring. shrike stayed out of the latest edit war on the dhimmi-page but supported, as always, his comrade on the talk page. on the other hand, he stalked my edits and participated in another conflict i was involved in [31]. others have also noticed shrike's bad habit of hounding, [32]. several other editors have made similar complaints about ankhmorpork and shrike. i can provide diffs for that as well. other editors have now removed the stark nonsense from the dhimmi-page but i suspect that ankhmorpork and shrike will continue their childish activities unless some administrative action is taken. -- altetendekrabbe  19:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

here is another stalker, user frotz, [33] reverting me everywhere. he is guilty of edit warring and is violating wp:brd. he is also terming fringe writers as rs [34]. in addition, he contributed to ankhmorpork's edit war on the dhimmi-page, while lying in the edit summary[35]. note that he also followed me from another page. he is quite open about his anti-islamic pov [36].-- altetendekrabbe  22:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Your allegations are very serious. If you believe them, I recommend you take them to the appropriate noticeboard. Otherwise, please stop making such accusations.

Meanwhile, I notice that you are once again edit-warring on multiple articles. Please stop or you will be blocked permanently. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

did you read what i wrote? i am not edit warring! check the edits. it is user frotz who is *following me around*, reverting me blindly on articles he never has edited before. he is the one who is edit warring by not following wp:brd. what noticeboard do you suggest i take this matter to?-- altetendekrabbe  08:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

do you see a pattern here?[37]. or here [38]? ankh, frotz, estlandia, again and again and again.-- altetendekrabbe  08:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD is an essay, and "violating" it is not a valid reason to edit war. If you feel harassed, file a complaint at WP:ANI. In the meantime, please stop edit-warring. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

excuse me, why don't you ask ankh and his gang to stop edit warring as well?-- altetendekrabbe  18:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

They're not edit-warring; you are. Look at the revision histories of Criticism of Muhammad and Criticism of the Quran, where you made three reverts, as well as Criticism of Islam and Dhimmi, where you've made two. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

yes, look closer on those pages, and check how many edits they had in total before they began reverting me. they follow my edits, starting edit wars wherever i go. ankh has been reverted several times on the dhimmi-page as well. you are now allowing wp:hounding.-- altetendekrabbe  19:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If you think there is tag-team editing or Wikihounding going on, take your complaint to WP:ANI. It does not give you an excuse to edit war. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

please, can't you see what's going on? i provided you diffs. it's beyond any doubt that ankh & co are following my edits. you should at least warn ankh & co... or is that too much to ask for?-- altetendekrabbe  19:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Altetendekrabbe asked me on my talk page to take a look at this thread, probably because I made an edit at Dhimmi. Looking over the recent history of the relevant articles, as well as some of the longer contributions of the other users, here's what I think.

1. I don't think Frotz is "stalking" you, he seems to have had "Criticism of Muhammad" on his userspace as one of his watched articles for awhile.
2. I'm not sure if AnkhMorph is stalking you - possibly - though he definitely seems to be going around trying to stir up lots of trouble on lots of Islam related articles, with a very strong anti-Islam POV.
3. Estlandia (disclosure, I've had numerous arguments with him in the past) probably is stalking you a little bit at this point, as in looking up your recent edits, then going in to revert them. Though he probably got embroiled in this all on his own - he's also got a POV thing going.

So I don't know if there's out right stalking going on but

1. By this point these users have found each other and they are tag-teaming to some extent (though, smartly they're doing it more across several articles rather than a single article). Hell. I've tagged team before, so I know what it looks like.
2. They are, individually or together, trying to provoke you into edit warring and get you blocked. Particularly AnkhMorph seems to be pretty good at playing this game ("I don't find this or that satisfactory" etc.).
3. But you are letting yourself get baited. Take your time in working out these conflicts. When they use crappy sources bring it up on RS and other venues. Etc.
4. And in regard to particular sources, I do agree with you that Islam: What the West Needs to Know is a fringe film that does not need to be spammed into all these articles. I've never heard of it before today, but looking it up, it was produced by a unknown company and promoted by some pretty sketchy organizations (including this ""American Film Renaissance Festival" and this "American Freedom Alliance").

Basically, I hate to tell you this but if you keep just reverting they're gonna succeed in getting you into trouble. This does need to be discussed on talk pages, other people should be brought into the discussion (otherwise they'll out shout you) and it needs to be dealt with patience.

VolunteerMarek 23:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks for your advice. in other words, they are gaming the system and are involved in hounding when opportunity arises.-- altetendekrabbe  05:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

update: tag-teaming proven [39].-- altetendekrabbe  09:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, sorry for replying late... if you suspect some editors are following your edits, it would be a good idea to compile 5-10 diffs which form a pattern and take it to ANI and keeping the discussion to just that. It might get noticed better by the admins that way. If they are editwarring without discussing you might point out WP:NINJA to the admins checking it out. Leave me a note if you needed the comment on another aspect too. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Blind reverts

Why did you remove the context which clarified the comment by Bernard Lewis? Your use of nasty language and blind reverts is unacceptable. 85.81.20.149 (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

i don't trust you. you continued the edits of a banned racist editor.-- altetendekrabbe  18:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand what I am saying? I didnt want to hear about your odd feelings, I wanted to hear about why you remove the context that I added to the comment by Bernard Lewis. -- 85.81.20.149 (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Also why did you claimj that I reverted the article? I assume that you don't even read the changes that you revert?

you're either a sock or a stalker. period. your attempt to make a wp:point by continuing the edit war of a banned racist user is unacceptable.-- altetendekrabbe  18:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Why dont you contribute beyond attacking me personally? Is that too hard for you? -- 85.81.20.149 (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, altetendekrabbe, you don't come out smelling like a rose from this. Sure it's easy to get all self-righteous and call other people "racists", and sure other editors, even pretty good ones, might share in that self-righteousness, but the fact is that WP should be a step above this kind of ad hominem vrovl. So, as the other comments on here suggest, you will be able to do good work here if you can just exert yourself to be as polite as possible. I hope you stay, but it's up to you mand! --Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Dhimmitude

Please revert yourself as you broke 3RR--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Kuru (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

i have been blocked for no reason whatsoever by admin kuru. i have not violated any rules, as confirmed by other admins here, [40] and if i am blocked, user shrike should also be blocked, as pointed out by two other administrators. by unilaterally blocking me admin kuru has taken side with the other party in the dispute. i suggest kuru explains himself on the noticeboard. this is block is unfair, and i am now cut off from an ongoing discussion. i have been tag-teamed against, hounded. just because i don't report this harassment it doesn't mean that others don't notice it. here is another discussion, confirming tag-teaming, [41]. and, i *did not break the 3-rr*! this is confirmed by other admins. please. check the diffs, and you'll see that two of the edits are unrelated. as i wrote on the noticeboard:.shrike is edit warring against consensus. he is added unrelated reverts to his diff-list (the 2. and 5. diff). he removed sourced content. my revert was totally justified (which amounts to a *single* revert of his *disruptive* edit.) shrike became *disruptive* because his misrepresentation of sources, his edit warring allegations ended in a total failure (before kuru came along and blocked me). he is deliberately made new disruptive edits so that he get reverted... this is a blatant attempt to game the system. shrike should be blocked for disruptive editing. as noted by admin Penwhale i did not break the 3-rr as the 2. diff is totally unrelated to the others. update: user estlandia has now removed content, right after me getting blocked. he is one of the tag-teamers. [42]. -- altetendekrabbe  11:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You clearly did break 3RR, and have been edit-warring quite consistently. The poor behaviour of editors on the other side (which I still agree has been tendentious to a worrying degree) can't permanently excuse this. I do hope it should have been clear that my intervention at WP:AN3 the other day was not meant to encourage you to continue with the many reverts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

There is a very clear explanation of the block at the link you provided; it has been there since about two minutes after this block and well before you posted this request. If you can point out a 3RR violation to back up your accusations against one of the three other people you were in a dispute with, I would be delighted to review. Kuru (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can point out a 3RR violation to back up your accusations against one of the three other people you were in a dispute with, I would be delighted to review. - Kuru, are you daft or something? The whole point of tag-team edit warring is that users collaborate to AVOID violating 3RR and try and bait a user they're tag teaming against into breaking it so as to get him blocked (and you were dumb enough to facilitate this for them). It's been amply documented that Frotz, Shrike and Estlandia have been tag teaming against altetendekrabbe. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise warned them about it at WP:3RR previously. So OF COURSE he's not going to be able to point out a 3RR violation by any one of those users! That's the whole freakin' point of tag teaming! Seriously, this is so incredibly stupid it's making my head spin.VolunteerMarek 11:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Consider yourself fortunate this is only a month (which is an escalation from previous blocks). Your WP:TE is blatant. Your attempts after being rightly reported for 3RR to then discredit your accuser by canvassing some favourite friends was even more disruptive. You're either going to get how this projects works, or not - if not, give up now (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is idiotic. You morons just rewarded gaming and disruptive behavior by a group obnoxious tag teamers, who've been trying to get this user for a month now. I'm sorry BWilkins but it's very obvious that YOU are the one who doesn't get how this project (really) works. You're clueless.

And people wonder why this project is dying. Maybe cuz the admin corps consists of twits.VolunteerMarek 11:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And what the hell is this: ". Bwilkins (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Altetendekrabbe (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:32:27 GMT (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎(Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked: WP:NPA while blocked)". Did you just block the user merely for posting an unblock request???

Are you open to recall or do I take this to AN/I? VolunteerMarek 11:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC).

• User:Altetendekrabbe I have re-enabled your talkpage access ... based on parsing, it appeared that two people had commented - it turns out that you were not the one who did the egregious NPA. My apologies to you for believing it was you, and I have noted such apology as I restored talkpage access (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@kuru, user estlandia has now removed content, right after you blocked me [43]. here is another discussion, confirming tag-teaming, [44]. and, i *did not break the 3-rr*! this is confirmed by other admins. please. check the diffs, and you'll see that two of the edits are unrelated. as i wrote on the noticeboard:.shrike is edit warring against consensus. he is added unrelated reverts to his diff-list (the 2. and 5. diff). he removed sourced content. my revert was totally justified (which amounts to a *single* revert of his *disruptive* edit.) shrike became *disruptive* because his misrepresentation of sources, his edit warring allegations ended in a total failure (before you came along and blocked me). he is deliberately made new disruptive edits so that he get reverted... this is a blatant attempt to game the system. shrike should be blocked for disruptive editing. as noted by admin Penwhale i did not break the 3-rr as the 2. diff is totally unrelated to the others.-- altetendekrabbe  12:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not endorsing or challenging the block as I do not have all the facts; however, I would like to clear up one issue. Altetendekrabbe, you keep arguing that you did not break 3RR because your some of your reverts were unrelated. 3RR states that if you make more than three reverts on a page, you can be blocked and, crucially, a revert counts as removing an edit "whether involving the same or different material each time" (my emphasis). Even if some of your reverts were for a completely different issue, you still made four reverts to that page in 24 hours and so you did break 3RR. As I said, I will not comment on the block or the accusation of tag-teaming because I do not have all the facts; nevertheless, you did break 3RR. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

sorry, but shrike removed long-standing content so that he could be *reverted*, don't you get it?[45] he is playing games and now you're letting him escape. in another revert, i reverted back in a reliable secondary source which was removed by *another* user. i can also add estlandia's attempt to tag-team here, [46] and here [47]... and he doesn't even participate in the discussions. you are now actually encouraging tag-teaming as a way to push a particular pov, leaving lone editors like myself defenseless. -- altetendekrabbe  14:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise, what is troubling about the whole situation is the fact the tag-teaming party of shrike and estlandia escaped this attempt as well. their gaming of the rules are so blatant and so clear that it warrants long bans on them as well. to block me for one whole month for fighting against removal of sourced content, fighting against misrepresentation of sources by user shrike (see talk on the dhimmitude page), and fighting against the blatant tag-teaming is just mind blowing. if shrike and estlandia are not blocked then at least reduce my sentence.-- altetendekrabbe  14:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello altetendekrabbe. Please try to take this advice to heart. Wikipedia is filled with people who play a game, and they play it very well. They know what will get them blocked, they know what will get others blocked. They know that the 3RR is a "bright line" and that if they can team up with another user they can escape crossing that line while enticing a lone user to do so. They know that admins are reluctant to actually look at the content of what is being reverted, so they have no qualms putting in pure horseshit into an encyclopedia article. They know that there is no effective means of enforcing the policies that, if this place (and its admins) were actually serious about making an "encyclopedia", actually matter, those being the content policies. You got suckered into believing that WP:NPOV and WP:RS matter as much as WP:EW and WP:CIVIL. They dont, and they never have.

When you come across an issue in which several users are violating the content policies, stop reverting. Just accept that the article is garbage for the time being, which really shouldn't get you down as most articles on Wikipedia are garbage. Get help from others, do not try to fix the problem yourself. Start an WP:RFC, go to WP:NPOV/N and WP:RS/N, do whatever you can to get other editors involved. That is the only way to deal with problems, and problem users, like this. If you can get several uninvolved editors to form a consensus and others continue to put garbage into an article, at that point they can be dealt with through administrative channels. But if you let them stoke an edit-war and get you past that "bright line" all that will happen is what just happened.

As a rule of thumb, if you make an edit, including a revert, that is reverted, do not re-revert. Go to the talk page and leave the contested material in the article for the time being. If the talk page does not have uninvolved editors chiming in, raise the issue at a content noticeboard. If you need more outside intervention, open an RFC. But dont play that game that others are playing. You will lose if you do so. Take care, nableezy - 20:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks, i'll certainly heed your advice. i usually don't use administrative noticeboards even when i'm harassed and hounded. but that has to change from now on.-- altetendekrabbe  20:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The most important thing you can do from now on is not perform more than 1 revert. Not even 1 revert a day, but if you make one revert and it is reverted, stop right there. Dont revert again until you know that there is a consensus for your position from uninvolved editors. In fact, if you were to make a commitment to doing that now, I dont see why you couldnt be unblocked right away. Do not forget, many others are just playing a game. Dont play it with them. nableezy - 21:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If you believe sources are being misrepresented feel free to ask me to look at them, I doubt anyone will call me biased in your favor :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

lol, thanks man. things were actually sorted out and going well. shrike panicked and started to remove reliable sourced content... hoping that i would revert him, and i did :P thus, i was blocked.-- altetendekrabbe  14:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

i hereby declare that i from now on abide by 1rr restriction as suggested by nableezy below. i will use appropriate talk-pages, administrative noticeboards and seek outside help rather than getting into fights. in return i would like to be unblocked.-- altetendekrabbe 13:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I am accepting this. Please note that I will be placing a box showing this restriction on your talkpage, and the box must remain there for the duration of the restriction. Please note that any violations will ensure an immediate re-block. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)