User talk:Bless sins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome! Please keep messages relevant and to the topic. Remember that I reserve the right to maintain order on this talk page by removing personal attacks, moving comments to proper sections and archiving as often as I see fit. In general, if you have a habit of removing my comments from your talk page, then I'll reciprocate. If the comment is regarding a specific article, leave it on that article's talk page (though you may contact me here if I haven't responded back on the article in days).

Leave a message at the bottom of a section, or start a section at the bottom of the page, or e-mail me. For discussions up till 13 June, 2008, please see my archives.

Contents

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)[edit]

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


Working on Article: Surah Al-Muminun[edit]

Assalamualaykum,

Thought I'd let you know I'm trying to put in some material for articles describing the various Surahs of the Quran InshaAllah (my most recent being Surah Al-Muminun. Now, there is not much I can do with my limited knowledge and resources, besides there IS a lot of wisdom in the adage 'Two heads are better than one' when it comes to learning and trying to put in words, something about a subject as vast as this.

P.S. Lets try to make that 'More than two'... AND not to forget, the adjectives 'reliable' & 'authentically sourced' :) (Everything is but, InshaAllah of course)

Wassalaam,

~ 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation[edit]

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are listed as a GA reviewer. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 07:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)[edit]

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits on Safiyya bint Huyayy[edit]

Recently few sections of article have been removed. These sections were based on Martin Lings' work, reason cited was that Lings is not a historian and was just a writer.

But same article quotes Wafa Sultan who is a psychatriat.

The difference seems to be is that Lings quotation were in support of Muslim view while Wafa's are against.

I think a discussion is needed over this issue.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ayesha(R.A)[edit]

Does this come under tendentious editing. Using Colin Turners book as a source (the same source for the statement on child marriages and the same page as well), Discussion is taking place here Only one statement of Colin Turner is being presented and the other is being conveniently ignored leading to change in meaning . Asking question on talk page because this user is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Expert Wikipedians in Islamic issues --Gnosisquest (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Salam just wanted to tell you that Maulana Ali is not a scholar in the wikipedia sense. Colin Turners view [1] on page 34-35 can be added ( Though it will have to be edited)

Just informing you since some mods have a habit of reverting edits without mentioning any reason. --Gnosisquest (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)[edit]

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful[edit]

Thanks for your recent contributions at Muhammad and Aisha. They are very sensitive articles, but your changes were excellent. In particular, your removal of Assassi and his related nonsense was perfectly correct. I think that such poor references are especially concerning in an article about important historical figures. Thanks again, and keep up your good work. Doc Tropics 02:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Help with Mosques taskforce[edit]

Hi there. Want to help out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Mosques task force if you have some time ? Thx. MP (talkcontribs) 19:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)[edit]

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Erichrome.JPG[edit]

File:Erichrome.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Erichrome.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Erichrome.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Spread sugarcane.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Spread sugarcane.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 05:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)[edit]

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started![edit]

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)[edit]

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest![edit]

Henry Allingham in 1916.jpg

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)[edit]

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)[edit]

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD[edit]

I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)[edit]

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)[edit]

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Naveed Afzal Haq[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

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

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

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I really like your username[edit]

You've really got one of the most thought-provoking Usernames I've seen. Your explanation of it is very compelling, too. Many people don't know this, but in Jewish history there were real schools of thought that promoted the idea that sin could be blessed. The idea that some sins were "holy sins" was one of the fundamental concepts of Sabbateanism. My alternate account is User:JacobFrank, named after a Sabbatean religious leader who lived in Europe and believed in "purification through transgression." BTW, some of the Sabbateans, including Shabbetai Zvi the founder of the movement, became Muslims. Jews and Muslims have more in common than we usually realize. Shalom aleichem, and blessed be your sins, AFriedman (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open![edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)[edit]

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened![edit]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)[edit]

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)[edit]

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of map in Gaza flotilla page[edit]

Hi Bless Sins,

Thanks for creating the map and adding to the discussion. However I'm concerned that the map is a gross oversimplification of world reaction. Please go back to the discussion page and answer some of my concerns regarding the map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_flotilla_clash#Requested_edit_.28please_add_image.29

I'm not opposed to including it, but I am concerned that its not really neutral.

Zuchinni one (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bless Sins, the OR in the map stems from the fact that different people are interpreting 'condemnation' in different ways. If a country condemns the violence ... does that mean they condemn Israel, the Israeli violence, the activist violence (since some people claim they were first ones to become physical), or the violence from both sides?

Also a map that only shows condemnation is not neutral. If there was a way to colorize the specific different responses from different countries and make that a map it might be more acceptable. But to only have a map showing condemnation, when there has been a wide range of responses does not seem neutral.

I hope this has been clear. I actually really liked your map at first, but the more I looked at the international reactions, the more I felt that, in this case, a map couldn't fairly indicate world responses. Zuchinni one (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

For a good example of my concern check out he UN's response ... condemnation of "Those acts leading to a loss of life" but specifically not mentioning Israel. And by the way ... it's been nice chatting with you too :) Zuchinni one (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bless, I apologize for keeping this brief, but I took another look at the main page for Talk:International_reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_clash#Map and it appears that other people are also concerned about the the neutrality of using the blanket term 'condemnation' when there are often carefully written statements in the international arena. The concern is that someone needs to make a judgment as to what exactly is being condemned. I'm not familiar with all of the reactions, so I used the UN reaction as an example of the kind of problem we face. Since a judgment needs to be made, that seems to qualify as OR.

Also a map that shows condemnation specifically, will necessarily leave out a lot of other international reactions. To do this in an unbiased way you would need, at a minimum, separate categories for: 1) Direct criticism of Israel 2) Criticism of the events/acts 3) Expressions of sympathy 4) Calls for inquiry ... and combinations of each of these for countries that did more than one.

However I do think it would be possible to fairly create a map of all countries who have called for an unbiased inquiry of events. That is a neutral statement and yet still signals concern from the countries that something further might need to be done, depending on the results of the inquiry.

I hope that this has helped. I'm going to add it to the main talk section as well so others can refer to it. Also I may not be able to respond quickly to future discussions for the next few days so please be patient if I don't seem to reply to future conversations. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your Gabon addition seems to have been removed, and the lead doesnt then have a source. I was wondering about this edit? (though it is on the map)Lihaas (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi Bless! Given the controversial nature of the map and the current request for comment from the wikipedia community at large, I would like to request you temporarily remove it from the main reactions article until a consensus is reached. Cheers ---- Zuchinni one (talk) 10:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the status of this map? I haven't been following it, right now trying to keep tabs on the censorship of the map and other POV edits. Have you been following it?Lihaas (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)[edit]

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Long time[edit]

Hey, hope you have been well. I've had some spare time recently and decided to get back into editing again. We never did get round to working together to build an article up to GA or FA (Or did we?). Any suggested articles, let me know. ITAQALLAH 00:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Both are heavy topics and of classical and modern significance. I'm happy to work on either, probably a slight inkling towards Sharia. A good volume of high quality refs is the first starting point so whichever article we can get these for is the best one to do I think. ITAQALLAH 18:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)[edit]

The June 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Astronomy in medieval Islam has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)[edit]

The Bugle.png

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010)
Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced;
Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy

Editorial

Opportunities for new military history articles

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)[edit]

The Bugle.png

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010)
Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants

Editorial

In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations

To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started![edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies talk 21:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Jagged 85 cleanup[edit]

Thanks for your message at my talk. Please see WT:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Wholescale deletion for a very preliminary response. I will follow up, but have not yet had the opportunity to examine the important issues you raised. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Jagged 85 clean up[edit]

Pleas take time to read

I am sorry if my edit summaries mislead you I did not intend them in the "in line" manner (not in citation) but in a lager sense that they cannot be confirmed or they are misleading or in some cases made up. jagged has admitted he doesn't read the sources he cites. I hope we can count on your help to clean up the mess. J8079s (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that we wouldn't be facing as big a problem as we now have in undoing Jagged 85's edits if the early criticism of them had not been answered by an unequivocal defense from you and some of your fellow editors. As I have pointed out elsewhere, his misuse of sources "is deeply insulting to anyone who recognizes the nature and extent of the Islamic contribution to the sciences."
I hope we can count on your assistance in developing balanced and reliably sourced articles on Islamic science. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Your reply about adding balance may have misunderstood the nature of my concern. I discussed my perspective on problems with articles on the history of science some years ago; the discussion of Whig history there describes the central historiographical problem that leads to a lack of balance in many of Jagged 85's edits. I hope you would consider these broader historiographical issues in any edits you make to articles dealing with Islamic history. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Women's rights in Saudi Arabia[edit]

Since you seem to be an active participant, I wanted to send you a note as well that I have placed the article on hold for up to 7 days. Aaron north (T/C) 01:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Qibla map[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Qibla map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 02:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom[edit]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, thought you might be interested -Aquib (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 cleanup: article stubbing[edit]

Hello. You are invited to take part in this vote concerning the clean-up effort in connectuion with Jagged 85's RFC/U. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Al Nour Party[edit]

Hello. I thought your addition there was unencyclopedic because articles here are to be "based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". You added primary sources affiliated with the subject instead. Jesanj (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In Egyptian parliamentary election, 2011–2012, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Run-off (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back[edit]

I'm glad to see you around again :) Al-Andalusi (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Criticism of Islam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Sam Harris
Foreign relations of Guatemala (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Drug trade

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

administrator jayjg[edit]

just want to tell you that you're not the only one appalled by jayjg's behaviour. usually, i don't care about people who behave like five-year-olds. the problem here is that mister jayjg is an administrator. he has called fellow editors "yellow badgers" or worse, see WP:BLP issue/User:Cincinatis.-- altetendekrabbe  18:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts. 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. TNXMan 19:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Why wasn't I ever notified about this[2]? Why can't I comment on that page either? Isn't it appropriate that I be allowed to challenge the allegations against me?Bless sins (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Bless sins (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I'm requesting that I at least be allowed to edit this page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bless_sins, where I was accused sockpuppetry. Is it not appropriate that I be allowed to respond to the claims against me?

But in general I feel my block is too harsh because: I did not commit sock-puppetry. User:Vice regent is not my sock-puppet, but is a different person - albeit related to me and we have shared the same IP address (and even computer). I believe I (and the other user too) did violate WP:MTPPT in one way: I did not declare our connection, per WP:SHARE. I should have done that, and I apologize. When allowed to edit my own user page, I will do so promptly. But, except in one case back in 2007, we never created the illusion of support: we never voted on the same election, we never engaged in the same edit wars, we never entered the same debates to show that two different editors were in favor of something etc. I did not "recruit" him for anything or "used" him in anyway.

Bless sins (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I don't find your explanation satisfactory in the light of this edit, for example. Max Semenik (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Max Semenik:Can you explain what you mean? The edit[3] you are referring to was accidental. That's why I promptly reverted it. I had forgotten to log in. I was under the impression that I was logged in and hence said "following me" and "reverting me". The edit couldn't possibly have been to create an illusion that I had community support. Please explain if you disagree.Bless sins (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Communication[edit]

I'm wondering how I can communicate with administrators (including those reviewing the block) while I'm blocked. I don't think I'm able to email them. I can post on my talk page, but editors hardly ever visit it. I can't go to Max Semenik's talk page asking his response. The last choice would be to repost the "unblock" template here, but I don't want to misuse it.Bless sins (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I forwarded your request to respond on the investigation page. One way or another it should draw attention to your explanation. Whether that will make a difference or not is another question....Doc Tropics 02:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

@Max, that edit doesn't prove anything, that's exactly what one would do after discovering they made an edit from someone else's account. The rest of the sockpuppet case, however, is very convincing. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I find myself less convinced by the evidence, which may have been misinterpreted.
  1. According to this report the two accounts have edited over 4,100 Unique Pages and only overlap on 183. As sockpuppets bent on wiki-wide domination that would seem woefully inefficient. However, that ratio would fit rather well with Bless Sins' explanation that the accounts are used by roommates with similar backgrounds and similar interests who are making an honest effort to avoid collusion.
  2. After reviewing over a dozen significant content contributions by each account it was fairly easy to recognize consistent style differences between the two; the differences also seem to support the proffered defense of two separate editors being involved. Although a talented sock-master could fake that part for a while, over 4,000 edits would be quite a stretch.
  3. Finally, I've worked with, and against, Bless Sins for too long to be able to believe this. We have been on opposite sides of some fairly heated debates and I'm afraid we disagree on some very fundamental points, but I've always respected BS as a great contributor and have never seen anything that would suggest such a level of duplicity would be possible.
In short, I believe this case merits reconsideration. Thanks, Doc Tropics 04:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
As I pointed out in the original sockpuppet investigation page, of the "only" 183 pages that overlap, some are extremely unlikely to have happened by chance. What are the odds that two different editors who generally only edit for the purpose of defending Islam/Muslim countries would also both edit Gecko or Seawater Greenhouse or Piracy? Jayjg (talk)
If I'm wrong I'll definitely have egg on my face; fortunately I'm partial to scrambled eggs ;)
OK, seriously - I know that since you filed the original report, it's your research and conclusions that I'm questioning, so let me hasten to be clear that I mean no disrespect. Let's also be clear that even in a best-case scenario, Bless Sins has acknowledged at least one technical policy violation and one (very stale) case of actual collusion, so some repercussions would probably be appropriate.
But if we do indeed have two independent contributors who have made mistakes and learned from them, then both of the current blocks would be excessive. I feel certain that BS is exactly the type of editor who learns form their mistakes and would turn it into a personal growth experience. Since both accounts have made numerous useful contributions, a harsh sentence risks the loss of both. Doesn't shorter blocks and better behavior from the editors in question sound more like a win-win scenario, for all of us? I think a 72 hour block for each would drive home an important lesson, and then we could get back to writing articles, or at least arguing about them  : ) Doc Tropics 15:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but I'm just looking at the evidence. What are the odds that "independent" editors like this, who never edit in these topical areas, would somehow both edit Gecko and Seawater Greenhouse and Piracy? Also, you say that "4,100 Unique Pages and only overlap on 183". However, you could also say that Bless sins has edited over 12% of the pages Vice regent has edited. Jayjg (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Oops, I meant to reply to this comment, but posted it in the section below. Sorry, Doc Tropics 16:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The two editors do not claim to be completely independent - they say they know each other well. It doesn't seem at all unlikely they would discuss the articles they're editing and both decide to edit some of the same ones (and it's a very small proportion of their total edits). I've done it myself - I've made edits to an article and then shown it to a friend and asked "What do you think of this?", and then he's edited and asked me what I think of that, and so on. It's really not an unthinkable coincidence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Explanation for Jayjg: The gecko article has been linked from Islam and animals, and it was claimed at gecko that the prophet Muhammad killed geckos. Geckos have been discussed at Talk:Islam and animals. I only went to the piracy article to add information on Mariam-uz-Zamani, a Muslim empress whose life is debated by Hindus and Muslims and an article I was active at. So both gecko and piracy are part of the sphere of Islam-related articles, as far as my editing is concerned.
What Jayjg has brought up isn't rare at all. Example: I have more than 440 pages[4] in common with Itaqallah (a respected editor with a strong interest in Islam). We have been on the same side of reverting, content disputes, votes on articles for deletion dozens of times. And we have both somehow edited articles unrelated to Islam: Ko Reibun, Cuban law, and Ed Mirvish.Bless sins (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you also edit from the same IP as Itaqallah ? Didn't think so. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Having a look[edit]

Personally I would have agreed to an unblock on the basis of what is visible above, especially the evidence from Doc Tropics. MaxSem has a notice saying "Regardless of any policies to the contrary, feel free to revert any admin actions I have performed if you believe them to be mistaken or unwise." However I am not sure I would go as far as regarding his actions as mistaken or unwise, just rather harsh. I will think about it a bit more but think there is a good case for reducing the block length. --BozMo talk 12:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that I'm not the blocker, I'd just reviewed the unblock request. Max Semenik (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Since this really requires looking at both accounts together I have raised it with the original blocking admin here [5]. I would like some other admin reactions before wading in. --BozMo talk 12:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Please see my comments above. Jayjg (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I think we tend to notice what edits other people we know do and I am sure that you and I overlap on a bizarre set of articles. But the nub of the argument is that it would seem an incredible amount of effort for a single individual to maintain these two accounts with differences in style etc, for negligible detectable gain. Most of the socks I have blocked have repeated arguments or edits made by the sock master and been recognised as such. I don't see any evidence of abuse at all here, which makes me inclined to believe the explanation of having left an account logged in. Why would anyone go to such elaborate trouble without abusing it, especially Bless Sins who does get into disagreements with other people... the temptation would have been too strong if they had been real socks.--BozMo talk 16:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I can't argue that there wasn't any wrongdoing at all; the questions at this point would seem to be "Are these two accounts being operated by the same person for reasons that violate policy, or are they separate individuals with similar interests who may have previously crossed policy lines?" If the former case is true, the the blocks imposed are entirely appropriate. If we are faced with the latter situation however, then leniency certainly seems warranted and a reduction should at least be considered. Here's what I see when I look at the same evidence Jayjg:
  • Bless Sins has been an active editor for 5 years amassing over 15,700 edits.
  • Vice regent has been active 4.5 years with almost 4,800 edits.
  • Despite some overlap in editing, there are consistent stylistic differences that would be difficult to maintain over that number of edits and that period of time.
  • Bless Sins has freely admitted to a technical violation and a single (old) case of collusion (now acknowledged to have been wrong). No evidence has been submitted to indicate that there have been more serious infractions or more recent ones (there hasn't been any more evidence, has there? did I miss some?).
  • As noted by myself and others, this all represents a very large amount of time and effort for little or no apparent gain.
In summary, the only violations that we can be certain of are either very stale, or minor items like WP:SHARE that wouldn't normally merit a block. My last post here suggested that a 72 hour block might be appropriate, but I'd even go so far as to suggest "time served" as being sufficient, pending their promises to behave appropriately and be more sensitive about the issue in future. Doc Tropics 16:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support unblock. I've read the arguments presented and I've had a look over a number of contributions from both contributors, and I do find the argument that they are two separate people plausible. I detect style differences too, and I also don't see any evidence of the two accounts being used for disruption. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
    Both accounts voted on the same AfD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_7#Category:Islamophobia, a clear violation of the sock policy. This was presented in the SPI evidence. If you don't see it, may I suggest your observation skills are not as honed as you'd like us to think. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
No, two users in these circumstances are not violating sock policy. And the lack of overlap is about whether we believe in two users (which aside the smoke looks fairly convincing to me). There is some offence though but the account has been blocked for a few days. Aside Jayjg who was engaged in a dispute with BS and made the original complaint it appears to be 2/0 on admins looking at the case presented by Doc Tropics who think the explanation offered is good enough for an unblock. What is troubling me is not Bless Sins (who will unblocked anyway after two weeks and I will unblock in another day or two unless some others turn up and give a coherent reason to disagree) but the other account which is indef blocked. Unblocking the other user probably should be done combined with some undertakings and I am not around enough to police them. Hmm. --BozMo talk 18:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed - two users who share the same home and the same computer both taking part in the same AfD discussion is not socking. I understand the concerns regarding the other account, and I'll have a think about what to do over the next few days - I may well seek assistance at AN/I. (Oh, and comments like "may I suggest your observation skills are not as honed as you'd like us to think" are really best left outside when you enter this civil discussion arena) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
We have no idea that these are two users who share the same home and the same computer - see WP:LITTLEBROTHER. Good faith users in that situation are supposed to declare the relationship - which BS did not, and violated the WP:SHARE as well as WP:MEAT policy even of it was 2 users. That, coupled with the first person response to a comment made by the other account , the curious overlap in articles and common arguments makes for a very clear case of disruptive sockpuppetry. Doc Tropics observations amount to 'I know this user, and can't believe he'd do something like that" 71.204.165.25 (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The difference here is that we do have evidence that they are *not* the same person - their consistently different editing styles would be very difficult to fake over a long period (I've investigated myself, and there is a clear difference in style). Also, the amount of article overlap is *small* compared to the number of articles they have edited - and the "first person" edit has been plausibly explained. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The first person edit has only been " plausibly explained" to the extent that "my little brother did it when I left my computer" explains similar situation - which is to say, contrived and improbable, and is routinely laughed away in similar circumstances. I looked at the contributions, and contrary to your impression, I see a lot of similarities in style and tone. And a 12% article overlap which includes obscure topics is beyond the realm of plausibility. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
No, that was *not* the explanation -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it *was* the explanation - that "my little brother" VR was logged in , and I didn't notice, and edited under his account. I've seen countless variations of this laughable excuse routinely tossed away when blocks are reviewed. This one's no different. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
"I didn't realise it was logged into his account when I did it" is *not* the same as "He did it" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
as far as the plausibility of two people using the same computer, and "accidentally" making edits on the other's account, it is exactly the same. You're clutching at straws here. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
There's absolutely nothing implausible in there being two Wikipedians in the same household. And if you had an account you'd probably know that when editing from your home there's no reason to log out. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Check out WP:EBUR , example#4. This is a textbook case in point. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC) −

71.204.165.25, Your comments are not really illuminating things for me, because they seem to be repeatedly inaccurate. It is a bit time consuming to keep reading your comments, checking and keep concluding they are inaccurate, and it would be kind of you to take more care. In this instance example#4, is clearly referring to a distinct situation to this one (typically a vandalism block where someone else used an account). Referring to the case as "a textbook case in point" is therefore an unwelcome distraction. I am not sure for whose benefit you are posting but as concerns my share of the favour I have read enough now. --BozMo talk 20:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I am posting for the benefits of other admins who may review this and be swayed by your apparent lackadaisical approach to this serious case of sockpuppetry, and your declared intent to wheel war. No one is forcing you to read my comments. As far as the plausibility of an editor making edits under another person's account with whom they share a computer, example #4 is exactly the same as we have here, down to the 'and I won't do it gain, I promise' bit. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
It's also not the case that the "Little brother" thing is a faultless proof of all vaguely similar cases - it is to be used as a guideline only, to be considered amongst all of the circumstances, and it is more aimed at blatantly disruptive use of two or more accounts. This case is far too complex for a mindless application of "little brother" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
How about the interesting circumstance that both accounts suddenly went dormant at the same time, making no edits at all from 3 May 2011 to 12 September 2011 ? The curious randomness just gets curiouser and curiouser . 71.204.165.25 (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Now that's interesting. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thats a better thought, thanks. It does look rather like the UK long vacation holiday for students though if they are students sharing digs it would fit fairly when. May Ball to autumn term... --BozMo talk 21:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
From the 3rd of May? Come now, that really is clutching at straws. Trinity May Ball: 18th June 2012 [6] etc etc. You haven't forgotten that May week is in June, I hope? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Guess I wasn't thinking about Cambridge because term there doesn't restart until Oct. --BozMo talk 03:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
[Just to be clear: all I was saying is that stopping at the 3rd of May can't be explained by a May ball. If two people are supposed to be sharing a house / in the same family / whatever, it seems entirely plausible that they would take the same summer time off. I've no opinion one way or another, at the moment, about the socking issue William M. Connolley (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)].
That's "interesting", but also presented with an obvious bias. BS has been inactive from March 26th to November 28th (exclusive), VR for a much shorter period. BS has about 50% article edits, VR has 72%. I don't believe these are the same people. I also don't think that we should block editors in good standing with a combined total of over 20000 edits and over ten years of on-wiki time without even hearing their side. I support unblock and suggest that they document their relationship on their user pages. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The %50% vs 72% is meaningless. What it boils down to is your "I don't believe it" vs. the findings of two check users, the suspicious circumstances of VR being created within hours after BS, the two accounts taking breaks together, editing the same articles with the same comments - including both articles within their declared and obvious sphere of interest (apologetics for Islam) as well as obscure ones, and responding to each other's comments in the first person. And it is false that we did not hear their side - we heard it right above - it is a variation on "my little brother did it" - BS claiming he shares a relationship and computer with his "little brother", and editing from his "little brother's" account, not noticing he hasn't logged into his own. These kind of excuses are very common with socks, and are accordingly routinely laughed off when dealing with sock puppets. We shouldn't make an exception here just because the sock puppetry has gone on for as long as it has - on the contrary.
another point worth mentioning is that even if there are 2 actual people here, it is an obvious case of meat puppetry, from a person with a history of such meat puppetry - see this and this 71.204.165.25 (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The CU findings were simply that the two accounts had edited from the same computer (but only the one computer - other computers used by them showed no overlap) - which nobody is disputing. As for your repeated "little brother" argument, let me present a syllogism to you...
  • Cows eat grass
  • Goats eat grass
  • Therefore goats are cows
That's exactly the same faulty logic you are using when you say...
  • Socks blame other family members
  • These two claim to be family members
  • Therefore they are socks
-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't presenting a formal logic argument, merely showing that the behavior you are using to exculpate these socks is one that, while acknowledged as perhaps somewhat "pluasible", is routinely laughed off. None of us have incontrovertible evidence or proofs one way or the other. You are raising a scenario which might possibly explain this in an innocent way, I'm showing you this is a well known and commonly rejected explanation. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I know you weren't offering a formal argument, but by presenting it formally I am demonstrating that your reasoning is faulty. ("I've seen THOUSANDS of cows eating grass - this goat MUST BE A COW!!!") -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What I haven't seen explained is that the VR account was created 14 hours after [7] the BS account was blocked [8]. That seems likely to have been a sock. Perhaps BS later handed the VR account over to a friend / housemate? True or false, however, it was a long time ago. I think, as Stephan says, that BS / VR should clarify the relations between them, but otherwise I agree with Stephan (and others). Update: I've now looked a the user compare report [9]. That, to my eye, makes it very clear that they are not socking: months or years go by between their overlaps William M. Connolley (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That's actually quite a common pattern for long term abuse with socks. I'll provide examples if you need to see it. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Same false logic as the syllogism I presented above -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
You've already said more than enough; your opinion against BS is quite clear. Moreover, your "long term abuse with socks" is wrong: there is no evidence of long term abuse at all William M. Connolley (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
It's an opinion on socking , not on BS, whom I don't know. There's evidence he's meat puppeted before, there's evidence that he and VR voted on the same AfD. The evidence is there for those wiling to open their eyes and see it. What is also puzzling is the almost total lack of explanation of these oddities by BS himself - just a collection of editors eager to invent , on his behalf, scenarios which might somehow explain away the obvious in a Innocent way, no matter how far fetched. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
William, what you're mentioning was a coincidence. During that block, Vice regent made two edits to Weetzie Bat. Why would I evade my block, thus risking further punishment, to make small edits to an article I have no known interest in? Since that block, I have been blocked twice: one of them for 72 hours. During both of those blocks Vice regent didn't make a single edit. If he's my sock, how come I did not use him to evade my block then?Bless sins (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I think what this needs is a community decision, so I'll propose an unblock at AN/I - give me a little while as it will take me some time to put it together -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I have the impression that if an admin were to reverse both blocks at this point it would be generally accepted by those who have reviewed the case thus far, including both the C/U, and the blocking admin. However, bringing it to AN/I allows for broader input and the possibility of new (stronger) evidence one way or the other. This does seem to have come down to a judgement call, and the judgement of the community is generally considered superior to that of us individual editors. I'd like to thank everyone involved for the effort that they have put into reviewing this situation, it obviously isn't a simple one. Doc Tropics 16:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I did consider checking with the blocking admin and the CU and being bold if they agreed - but I think ANI would give a more defensible result, whichever way it goes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I too would like to thank everyone involved. All of you have taken time out to do this. If there is a posting on AN/I, may I request that the notice redirect here? This would allow me to respond to any new questions, while attracting the community attention necessary.Bless sins (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Gravity of offense[edit]

Both Vice regent and me voted at [10]. I have already recognized (and apologized for) that as a violation of WP:SHARE. But this violation occurred 4 years ago, when WP:SHARE doesn't seem to have existed. Back then, WP:SOCK[11] characterized a meatpuppet as a "single purpose account" and newbies. By November 17, 2007, Vice regent was a 5-month old editor with 500-800 edits on a wide range of topics and thus not a single purpose account or a newbie.

But when WP:SHARE came out in 2008, I should have revealed the connection and I'm at fault for not doing so. But please keep the gravity of the offense in mind when deciding upon the punishment/length of my block.Bless sins (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

AN/I[edit]

There is a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review/unblock proposal, in which you might have an interest. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

71.204.165.25 alleges that I have a history of meatpuppetry. That is simply false. There is a history of editors accusing me of puppetry,[12][13] and they either don't provide evidence or their report fails CU.Bless sins (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've unblocked you. Please read the aforementioned discussion for advice on how to avoid such confusions in the future. Best regards, Max Semenik (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC) The archived discussion may be viewed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive735#Block_review.2Funblock_proposal.Bless sins (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

To add a theological note[edit]

Rather than you thanking the community for sorting our an injustice [14] I feel some measure of apology for the original judgement is in order. I cannot see that anyone else has quite managed to say sorry to you and VR for the block without having given you a chance to speak first (albeit that AFAICT no one was particularly to blame, the procedure just kind of took over), so please allow me to say "sorry" from us the community. Your own patience in the matter was also very helpful. --BozMo talk 09:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Again, I'm grateful for your involvement. But I think administrators too can exercise some patience and caution. For example, when an anon presented "evidence"[15], 3 different editors commented before Stephan Schulz pointed out the evidence was misleading.Bless sins (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair point. And there I was kicking myself for not being bold and unblocking earlier. There is often too little time to check all the details and we tend to put much on trust. However (to misquote Pride and Prejudice a second time in case you missed the one above) a good opinion of an editor once lost can never be regained. --BozMo talk 17:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Waqf, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jenne and Masina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year[edit]

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Muslim holidays, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ashura (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Islam and abortion, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kuwaiti and Bosnian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza[edit]

Hi Bless sins, user Misconceptions2 (talk · contribs) has been blanket reverting the fixes you've made to the article (and which you have already clarified on the talk page: Talk:Invasion of Banu Qurayza#Inaccuracy and poor editing). Can you please have a look at Talk:Invasion of Banu Qurayza#Misconceptions2's POV edits. Thanks. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I will take a look at this soon.Bless sins (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Arabic discussion at Islamic Golden Age[edit]

Hi, I got your name through Wikiproject Islam. I've started a section at Talk:Islamic Golden Age re: the correct Arabic text and transliteration for Islamic Golden Age. I'm a non-Arabic reader myself; would you be able to help at all, or point me in the direction of someone who can? Thanks, merlin --Merlinme (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Mohamed Mahmoud Buheiri[edit]

Much like the request above, I came across the biography of this Qu'ran reciter and in trying to add references to establish notability, was stuck in part by a lack of an Arabic translation of his name (and through my own ignorance of the language). Any assistance would be appreciated. Cheers, --joe deckertalk to me 22:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

His name is "محمد محمود البحيري" in Arabic, or Muḥammad Maḥmūd al-Buḥayrī. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! That's very much appreciated! --j⚛e deckertalk 15:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Islamic barnstar.png The Islamic Barnstar
For your work on Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. Keep it up, -- Mar4d (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the projectwhat coordinators do) 08:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Bless sins. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Al-Ahbash. Thank you. -- McKhan (talk)

File permission problem with File:Temple gate.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Temple gate.jpg, which you've sourced to http://www.flickr.com/photos/mockstar/233779424/. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Your kind response needed[edit]

Hello, this is another mate on the English Wikipedia. If i'm posting in wrong place then sorry but i'd appreciated your comments. I'm requesting your comments as i feel some false accusation are being made without reliable sources in some Islam related articles that were created by a single editor User:BengaliHindu. Specially, i found this article 2013 Canning riots with lots of bias and false accusations against Muslims where Muslim clerics were murdered yet blames goes to local Muslim people. May be i'm wrong but it may also possible that such articles were created per Islamophobia. I believe Wikipedia should be free from personal feelings or views and articles on sensitive topics need extra care to maintain a NPOV. I'd deeply appreciate your comments and advises. Best Regards,  Mrwikidor ←track 16:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Damietta protests.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Damietta protests.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t c) 01:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Editors Barnstar.png The Editors Barnstar
For your motivation in keeping Wikipedia POV free and informative. Please, continue the good work! --117.194.197.73 (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 18:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you, perhaps, my text for discussion anti - Arabism View short. Thank you.[edit]

<Article 9 us Languages ​​that show us - to realize Biblical prediction: the Great God this people (possibly race) increased as stars in the sky. Other thing that this Big people / race find enough love and acceptance not in all States tablets at the same time. Probably, therefore, organized U.S. - Government (éventuel a charge of U.S. government Internet service) a discussion on 9 us Languages​​. So, here in Wikipedia itself can anti - Arabists express / sublimate / kristalisieren / ausdempfen etc. but this should come to no stupid idea, do not form associations, groups, etc. Geselschaften. But, dirrekt and openly write here and calm down last forming. What am I doing too much: -Yes , Schader that these Arabe hate always höfflichen and intiligenten Judaizers so anhetzen , provoke so sometimes even kill . To spread anti - anti- Islamism - Arabism Certain Mass also Helde people Arab people (race ) have been guilty.> 91.183.197.102 (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Baghdad map abbasid.gif or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Honor Diaries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CAIR (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel 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/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. AlanS (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)