User talk:Flagrantedelicto

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Flagrantedelicto! Thank you for your contributions. I am Gigs and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Gigs (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm Toddy1. Another editor noticed that you made a change to an article, Yazid I, but you didn't provide a reliable source. The other editor removed it for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think he made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Toddy1 (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Toddy1. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Yazid I seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. In addition it was uncited If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Toddy1 (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Yazid I. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you understand the concept of citations. You should add reliable sources as citations which would allow someone to check that the information you added is valid and so they can find more information. Web sites, (preferably English, but other languages are acceptable), books, newspaper articles and such. You can see how the other citations on that page were added they begin with <ref> and end with </ref>. For example, if you were citing a book the way to do it would <ref>Smith, ''Book title'', 2nd edition, p21-2.</ref> This would show up as something like [3]. Clicking on that would take you to the references section and you would see "Smith, Book title, 2nd edition, p21-2.". You could then add some more details about the book to the list of sources.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Yazid I 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. Favonian (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ~~~~.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not put a level 2 heading in front of all your posts - when it is clear that they are just a continuation of previous discussions.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning for you disruptive editing on Ali[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ali, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --SpidErxD (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncalled for remark[edit]

You wrote "With all due respect, please don't place me in the category of the people you have come across here on Wikipedia edit history and its ceaseless POV-pushing vandals." This remark is uncalled for. I have not made any personal attack on you. I treat you with respect. Please do the same for me.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Antony's birthday[edit]

January 14 is the most widely accepted date for Antony's birth. There is at least one alternative date or time frame, but the way you're inserting the information is confusing: you're placing it before the footnote that verifies January 14. Huzar pp. 10–11 fails verification; these pages don't say anything about the date of Antony's birth. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Mark Antony#Birthday. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First or second Caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty[edit]

Please could we discuss the issue of whether Muawiyah was the first or second Caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty at Talk:Muawiyah I#First or second Caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal information[edit]

Try to reveal another editor's real name again, and you'll be blocked so fast your head will spin. This is not a matter for discussion. Email me or the oversight team if you have any questions. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're making it worse. If you want to talk about this, email me or the oversight team. This is not to be discussed on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't really see a need to discuss this. I made an unintentional error. I just didn't like the way you informed me of my accidental, unintentional revelation. Let's drop the matter here and now. My contributions on WP outweigh any undesired conflict. Is that understood (?) Flagrantedelicto (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. Contributions make no difference when it comes to violations in policy. Also, WP:CIVIL (which is a policy) might be worth a read. If you don't want to be blocked, I suggest you change your attitude now - "Is that understood" and "I am the last person you want to talk to that way, got it" could easily be taken as threats, and that is not the sort of behavior that is permitted, or allowed, on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Such responses from anyone does come across as threatening. I guess I need to not miss taking my High BP prescriptions in a timely manner (seriously, no humour intended). I will ease off. But keep in mind (for the record), it was fellow WP editor Cynwolfe who initiated the personal attacks by calling me "ignorant". This is a matter of open record which anyone can view in the Mark Anthony Talk Page section. And I forgot to add, me being warned that I will be blocked so fast that my head will spin could also be perceived as a threat (especially to someone with High BP medical condition). Keep that in mind, as well. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I used such strong words. I was just trying to make absolutely sure you knew how serious a matter this was. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the apology. Thanks. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Hello. I'm required to inform you about this report I made at ANI. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened my complaint at ANI. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading edit summary[edit]

At Mark Antony you deleted[1] the text " (the calculation is described as including "room for judicious interpretation")" with an edit summary saying "Deleted entry as the recalculated date does have attribution: Classical scholar Max Georg Gerhard Radke; please see Talk Page for explanation." As the text that I added said nothing about attribution but was a comment (from Donna Hurley) on the recalculated date, your edit summary was clearly misleading. Please don't let this happen again. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013[edit]

Hello Flagrantedelicto. I am Diannaa and I am an administrator on this wiki. I have been reviewing your contributions on the Mark Anthony talk page as a result of the report posted at WP:ANI and can see some ongoing problems with the way you are handling the discussion there. Some examples of recent problematic edits, though virtually every edit you made on that page has contained veiled insults of some sort. This violates our policy of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. These are examples only:

Questioning people's intelligence and motivation is a bad idea, and violates our WP:NPA policy. And asking them about their physical health is not done; it's quite simply none of your business, and is completely irrelevant to a content discussion on this wiki, even if you choose to first reveal information about your own health. Please focus your comments strictly on the content discussion, not on the other editors, their motivations, their health, or their level of intelligence. This is not an exhaustive list. Further violations of our WP:NPA policy could result in your account being blocked from editing. -- Dianna (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive language to other editors[edit]

In your post on Talk:Yazid I at 00:50, 1 May 2013, you said:

Sayom, should we all laugh now or wait till what you wrote starts to sound funny (?) You sound like a Saudi-Salafi shill.

This was abusive. Please could you delete these words from your otherwise useful posting.

We could all be abusive to people we disagree with on some points. On the whole life works better if we treat each other politely.

If you believe that there is something wrong with being a citizen of Saudi Arabia, or with being a Salafi, then please be careful not to express these views on Wikipedia.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to somewhat disagree with your assessment of my response to Sayom. Being described as a shill is not being abusive. First of all, I stated that he sounded like a Saudi-Salafi shill...I didn't openly state that Sayom WAS a Saudi-Salafi shill. Please make note of the syntax and semantics of the English language. Also, the Merriam-Webster/Dictionary.com definition of shill are the following excerpts:

shill noun Definition of SHILL 1 a : one who acts as a decoy (as for a pitchman or gambler) b : one who makes a sales pitch or serves as a promoter

shill [shil] Show IPA Slang. noun 1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc. 2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

Consequentially, the definition of shill is really not abusive...It is certainly not flattering, but it is not abusive or profane. It is more of an unfavourable criticism, if anything else. I also would appreciate it if you would re-evaluate lecturing fellow WP editors such as myself. You have probably never even been to Saudi Arabia. If you had, then you would know that it is Saudi law that a woman cannot even drive a car there by herself and has no individual legislative rights. I have been there a few times. Here is a clip from a WP article itself:

For me to go to any government agency or to the court to buy or sell property, as a woman I am obligated to bring two men as witnesses to testify to my identity, and four male witnesses to testify that the first two are credible witnesses, and actually know me. Where is any woman going to find six men to go with her to the court?! It’s hard for me to get my legal rights...the solution is to use one’s connections, pay a bribe or be sharp-tongued. --Loulwa al-Saidan, real estate investor

Flagrantedelicto (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be polite, If you hate Saudi Arabia, and it's people IT'S YOUR PROBLEM. (as a woman I am obligated to bring two men as witnesses) not only women, even men do this, So no one can LIE. Don't use my country low to justify your bad talk.__Sayom (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not hate Saudi Arabia or its people. I just stated a legislative fact. Saudi Arabia has laws that are not exactly fair to all members of its society. The United Nations and Amnesty International also have problems with inequity in several countries worldwide, one of whom is Saudi Arabia (which is very high up on their list). I was responding to Toddy1, not you. So you have no business responding to my correspondence with Toddy1. I hope you understand this point well. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned my name, and my country so i will response.__Sayom (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are under the impression that I am making up my citation from a Saudi citizen whose views were cited right here on WP, here is the link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia Flagrantedelicto (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sayom has a right to respond to anything anyone writes on a talk page. If you want to write to me privately, use a fountain pen. (You cannot be sure who reads Wikipedia emails.)--Toddy1 (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy1, I don't want to get into to an unnecessary session of lecturing or being lectured here. Sayom may respond as there is no way to stop Sayom, obviously. It is Sayom's right of free thought and speech. But it is also my right to react with my opinion regarding Sayom's response. And I repeat to you or Sayom, what I put on YOUR or MY talk page in direct correspondence between us is really none of Sayom's business. That I will stand by so there is no reason to go back and forth on this issue. However, I will heed to your advice about writing to you privately. I always have appreciated your support and assistance and I value your thoughts. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Muawiyah I Article Page[edit]

You left the following message on my talk page:

You made a comment in your last (essentially vandalism), unsourced edit in the Muawiyah I article which states that books were written hundreds of years later...You are referring to literature written by prominent classical Islamic scholars read across a millennium...And yet you quote a relative novice like Aisha Bewley, who herself in her self-published website states that her husband Abdur Rahman Bewley corrects her Arabic translations from sounding like ARAB-LISH. You further stated earlier that Classical Islamic works are barely being translated into English and those which are translated are "interpreted". You do know that much of the classical works have been translated into other languages (Farsi, Urdu, Turkish, English, French, etc.), and are out of reach of that particular POV-pushing group which is on a mission to RE-EDIT and tamper with those Classical SUNNI Islamic works, so it will fit in with their aqeedah (religious conviction). The late Shaykh Albani being a prime example, who got caught red-handed for eliminating over 300 ahadith of Imam Bukhari in one of his books. The famous Hanafi SUNNI scholar Dr. Mohd. Tahir Ul Qadri exposed this publicly.
You have entered a substantial amount of paragraphs/sub-paragraphs that have still NOT been cited whatsoever. Essentially, you already have your work cut out for you in CITING all of your remaining UNCITED additions to the article. You also falsely represented (while citing) Bewley's book Muawiyah, Restore of the Muslim Faith by linking it to Bewley's self-published website blog, while nothing of the actual book was cited (except for one properly cited info which myself and another WP editor left alone). It would be proper to discuss in the Muawiyah I Talk Page before making further unsourced edits. Wa Salaam. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I have been busy at work and will be making changes on that page when I get some time. Flagrantedelicto I think all this point of view pushing is giving a bad impression of Islam, that is not correct. Many of these events are political in nature. But all this point of view pushing is making it seem as if the early Muslims were just like the Mongolians fighting over who should be king. Which is not true, as they left behind a legacy where millions of people now believe in one god. I was hoping to go through the other articles like the Muhammad's views on slavery page and other such articles because they have a lot of false information. Many of the people these articles say were Muhammads slaves were actually slaves Muhammad bought and freed and later became great scholars. Now I come across them when I look at the chains of narration of some hadith. But I ended up wasting time with you on the Muawiyah page. Flagrantedelicto I do share some of your views but some times one has to be open minded too. Muawiyah is a very complex character and for some reason there is a big difference between what the later Muslim books say about Muawiyah and what the roman books written during the time of Muawiyah say about him. He appears to have caused the Romans a lot of trouble but at the same time they respected him because of the way he built up his Navy. He is a very complex character. Only God knows what he was really like. Away from this articles may be we could work together on improving other articles on Wikipedia. There is a lot of false information on there as you must have seen --Johnleeds1 (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no real POV pushing from my end, if anyone carefully analyzes it. What I don't agree with is the REINVENTION of Caliph Muawiyah I from the already established Islamic works. And that went for Caliph Yazid I as well (in the case of that article, there is still clear FALSE info which has yet to be omitted); what I did there was COUNTER that false UNCITED info with info that has been established over a period of a thousand years.
What gives a bad impression of Islam (or any religion or creed) is when Islamic advocates or adherents don't own up to the fact that there are flawed figures in Islamic history as well. Trying to apply what is clearly the trademark of POV-pushing pseudo-revisionists of standard Islamic history is not acceptable in any academic circle. You are coming across like someone who is on a mission to rewrite standard Islamic history as you (and others who share your views) see fit. This is POV-pushing. Even historians and scholars of Christianity have not tried to REWRITE and white-wash some of the horrors and brutality associated with the Inquisitions in Europe.
Just stop and think of what happened in the early days of the Caliphate: Abu Bakr Quhafah bin Uthman al-Taymi, Umar ibn al-Khattab al-Adiyy, and Uthman bin al-Affan al-Umawwi became Caliphs. Abu Bakr was ELECTED by the Muslim Council after heavy lobbying by himself and the Meccans who supported him. Umar was APPOINTED by Abu Bakr. Uthman was APPOINTED by Umar. Not once did Ali ibn Abi Talib start a civil war against their Caliphate. To the contrary, he was sought by Caliph Umar as a senior Council member. Now when a reluctant Ali was ELECTED Caliph by the Islamic Council, he gets attacked by all his fellow Muslims (Aisha, Talhah, Zubayr, Marwan, Muawiyah, and the Secessionists). The pretexts were that Ali did not apprehend Uthman's killers. Well, all the early chronicles state that it was a large mob of Muslim citizens who stormed Caliph Uthman's palace. Who was Ali going to arrest ? An angry mob of Muslim citizenry ? There is ample early records which state that Caliph Uthman made a lot of enemies. Caliph Umar was assassinated by a lone assassin (as was Ali) in contrast. Besides, Aisha bint Abu Bakr has a few hadith attributed to her in which she clearly condemned Caliph Uthman and some of the policies of his rule. Now you couldn't possibly be like that MEDICAL DOCTOR turned self-claimed Islamic scholar (Shabbir Ahmed) who wrote books claiming that the historical battles of Jamal, Siffin, and Karbala NEVER HAPPENED (!?) There was conflict in the early history of Islam and trying to white-wash and rewrite it to suit this pseudo-unification agenda of a particular POV-pushing pseudo-revisionist group is unacceptable in any academic environment.
You still should be far more concerned about CITING the sources of all of those entries you made in the Caliph Muawiyah I article. Instead of doing that, you are changing CITED entries which are from traditional Islamic sources. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to add a couple thoughts on some of your comments expressed. Your statement that Islam is getting a bad impression when early Muslim history is being (essentially) portrayed the way it probably happened. To state that early Muslim leaders were not like the Mongolians fighting over who should be king might be a statement offensive to Mongolian people who are equally proud of their heritage as world conquerors. The Mongols themselves have been re-evaluated from an "Eastern" perspective by Western-Occidental scholars. The collective early Islamic historians (mostly Persian), in spite of the fact that Islamic culture and society was dealt its severest blow by the Mongol conquests, wrote surprisingly well-balanced historiography about the Mongols. It is these historical records which are being re-evaluated by Western-Occidental historians who once disdainfully panned the Mongols as scowling, essentially primitive savages. Genghis Khan is now acknowledged by Western-Occidental historians as a brilliant administrator; for instance, he is now acknowledged for personally designing the arrow-resistant battle garments which reduced the velocity and damage done by arrows in battle; he further came up with the idea of the "arrow" riders who were directly modeled by the Pony Express riders in the history of the American West. Well guess what, the Persian Muslim chroniclers had already made a similar assessment of Genghis Khan in some of their classical works. The mighty Khan wasn't painted as primarily a scowling, savage warlord in medieval Islamic historiography as he was in Western-Occidental chronicles.
Another statement of yours which I wanted to address was that you seem to be on a crusade of vindication of early Islamic history from what (increasingly) appears to be, a theological perspective rather than a more academic, scholarly one. Standard Islamic history had its flawed figures just as Christianity or Judaism also did. You cannot expect to white-wash and reinvent these facts. There were heroic, villainous, and anti-heroic figures in early Islamic history, just as in Judaism and Christianity. Sure, there is no doubt that the Islamo-Arab conquests left the world a legacy of monotheism, but you are forgetting that CHRISTIANITY (and on a smaller scale JUDAISM) left the world a legacy of monotheism BEFORE standard Islamic culture. One important point to make here is that the roots of Judaism, Christianity, and standard Islam are ALL MIDDLE or NEAR EASTERN. The fact that the Western-Occidental world has taken virtual ownership of Christianity and Judaism from its SARACEN/ARAB roots is another topic of discussion entirely. In the Near Eastern-Oriental world, the people are very well aware that the great monotheist leaders (whether real or mythogenic) like Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc., have been culturally depicted by the Western world as "white" Europeans, when they were obviously Middle or Near Easterners (Saracens). But then again, that is another topic entirely. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what are your views on Abu Bark, Umar, Uthman, Aisha, Talhah and Zubayr.--Johnleeds1 (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is a monumental question which cannot be done justice here in the WP Talk Pages. At least SIX separate biographies would have to be written about them cited from ALL the earliest possible chronicles available. However, I could summarize in an analogy from the Quranic Surah of Yusuf (Joseph): The ten (10) sons of Shaykh Yaqub Isra'eel (Elder Jacob Israel) were envious about their patriarchal father's affection for their younger brothers Yusuf and Binyamin. They squabbled over this which even led to enmity, but in the end they all came together and were united. This happened when the majority of the sons of Shaykh Isra'eel realized their unfairness toward Yusuf. Of course the sons of Shaykh Isra'eel all were united and lived together in prosperity in Egypt. Until a ruling dynasty which came to power oppressed them. This oppression in our contemporary times, as seen from many an Eastern-Mashriqi perspective is from Imperialist-Colonialist foreign powers. That is what the Islamic Ummah is (generally speaking) feeling right now: Cultural and political oppression from foreign powers. Consequently, the Islamic Ummah is awaiting their own Musa (Moses) to come and deliver them from this perceived Imperialist-Colonialist oppression. Many Muslims like to think that this Moses might be the Guide (Mahdi). Some contend that Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab thought of himself as this Guide. Others thought that it was Khomeini. And yet others thought it was Ghulam Ahmad. There is an old Arabian proverb: For every Pharaoh there is a Moses. I guess for those who are waiting, will probably have to wait and see what happens next. Part of my views on theology (in general) are of an agnostic approach, while another part is monotheist; it is a symbiotic approach. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Flagrantedelicto the last time I talked to you on the Ali page you said:
"The Shias & Salafis despise each other to an extent that is anti-Quranic, to say the least. The Shi'ite self-professed, self-righteous claimed ownership of the Ahl Al Bayt Muhammadi (People of the House of Muhammad) is as much an obstacle to Islamic unity, as the Salafi/Wahhabi frenzy or witch-hunt to label anyone as Kuffar (Ingrates) and anything as Takfir (Attributing Ingratitude) which is even remotely perceived as Bidah (Innovation). Neither of these two polaric opposites have earned the right to impose such values upon Islam (as defined in the Qur'an). And btw, from most all the occurrences of the Arabic words Kufr and Kuffar stated in the Qur'an, their contextual definitions are more accurately Ingratitude (for Kufr) and Ingrates (for Kuffar), more so than Disbelief / Unbelief / Infidelity (for Kufr) and Disbelievers / Unbelievers /
But then some of your views on Abu Bakr are even more anti Abu Bakr than some Shia's, many Shia have limits because Abu Bakr was the great grandfather of Jafar Sadiq. And Abu Bakr's son Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr was raised by Ali and his grandson Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr and daughter Asmā' bint Abu Bakr were very close to Ali and Hussein. Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr later took on Yazid after Hussein was killed. And Abu Bakr's grandson Qasim was raised by Aisha and was the grandfather of Jafar Sadiq. So they have limits because Jafar Sadiq said don't speak badly about my great grandfather. Rather than arguing it will be best if you also adopt a middle ground.
You talked about some perceived Imperialist-Colonialist oppression and that the people in your country are waiting for a Moses. Just because Aisha Bewley is white does not make her an Imperialist-Colonialist. Why are people in your country waiting for a Moses. Why don't the people in your country just educate them selves and build factories and industry and organise them selves to remove their corrupt rulers. If you look carefully at the Muawiyah article, and you look at the Roman text on Muawiyah, you will find that he was in a much worst position than people in your country, when Umar appointed him the governor. His elder brother Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan the previous governor of Syria, along with Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah the governor before him and 25,000 other people had died in a plague. The situation was so bad in Syria that Umar went over personally to Syria because the majority of his army had died and the Roman army was waiting on the border. The population in Syria at the time was not Muslim, so essentially Muawiyah was almost on his own. Had it been some one from your country, he would have carried on waiting for Moses. But Muawiyah with his creative imagination was not from your country and decided to go to the Christian population and ask them to help him build a Navy to take on the Romans. What many academics find amazing is that he managed to get the Monophysitise Christian, Coptic, and Jacobite Syrian Christian to build a navy and in 6 years defeat the Byzantine navy at the Battle of the Masts. Byzantine navy was the super power of the time. It was the roman navy with a history of hundreds of years. That is so extreme, its like you going to Canada and becoming its Prime Minister and then taking on the US navy. So rather than delete everything from the Muawiyah article why don't you look at how he managed to do such things. Why did the population in Syria help him, what did they gain. It appears he gave the population Justice, continued the welfare system for the poor and appointed the most talented people in the top positions, irrespective of their religion and aloud them to gain more knowledge. May be if the people in your country provided justice, had a welfare state for the poor, and appointed the most talented people irrespective of their religion in the top positions, rather than wait for Moses, they would not fall victim to a fake Moses. He has the other side to him too, that he did not back down, when Ali moved north. So that is like you taking on the US and then the people in the Middle East moving against you and the Canadians and you surviving. So you could see why the academics in the West look at Muawiyah. You were talking about Imperialist-Colonialist and I guess you were referring to my country. Here in the UK we have learnt from Muawiyah, and here in the UK there is justice, a welfare system for the poor and we appoint the most talented people in the top positions. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


There are few points which you have brought up which I shall attempt to address: Where did you get my views of Caliph Abu Bakr from (??) lol I have not expressed ANY VIEWS specifically about Caliph Abu Bakr ANYWHERE. You are clearly imagining things. And then you accuse me of having ANTI-ABU BAKR views (??) Where in the world do you get that from (??) With this accusatory comment by you, you have lost a whole lot of credibility.
Point two: What country are you talking about when you say "your country" ?? I am a U.S. citizen and have been living in America for four decades (I might be old enough to be your father, lol). However, I have kept in touch with my South Asian heritage and have studied Arabic, Farsi, and (native) Urdu. I have only cultural ties with Pakistan.
Point three: What does my analogy of some of the ideology of the Muslim Ummah awaiting a Guide or leader have to do with Aisha Bewley being Caucasian (?) (Fyi, my spouse is Caucasian, while my off-srpring are half-Caucasian). And I made absolutely NO connection to Aisha Bewley with the perceived Imperialist-Colonialist views of some people in the Muslim Ummah (!) You are really losing it...lol
Point four: And I did not specify any particular country or nation when I stated about the perceived feelings of foreign Imperialism-Colonialism in some Islamic countries. I never ONCE mentioned the UK. So now you have come down to the level of putting words in my mouth which I have never stated or implied.
Point five: You virtually reject all the literature of the classical Sunni Imams and Ulama and keep citing the rather minimal Byzantine records regarding Muawiyah (of which you cannot provide any genuinely cited medieval sources). You keep bringing up the so-called "Roman" view of the Caliphate of Muawiyah. And then you keep going into these dissertations about Caliph Muawiyah. You seem to be a big fan of Caliph Muawiyah which is your prerogative, but you are also rejecting all the early classical literature of SUNNI MUSLIM Imams and Ulama regarding him. The literature is ambivalent as he was undeniably a controversial figure in standard Islam. It is the Salafi/Wahhabi ideology which unanimously regard Caliph Muawiyah as a Muslim hero, NOT traditional SUNNI. A certain percentage of the majority Islamic population (which is SUNNI) have a more ambivalent view of Caliph Muawiyah, which is based purely on the literature of the classical Sunni Imams and Ulama.
Point six: I think it is better to limit correspondence with you in theological discussions, as you clearly imagine things which were NEVER stated by people and accuse them of things that were NEVER stated or implied. Besides, you have mentioned that you have wasted your time with me on the Muawiyah I aricle...If you consider it a waste of time, then corresponding with me is also a waste of your time. What you should be concerned with is CITING sources to all the entries you made in the Muawiyah I article. Doing this will not be wasting your time. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the abu bark bit I was talking to some one else about Abu Bakr some time ago and got confused when you wrote "Ali gets attacked by all his fellow Muslims (Aisha, Talhah, Zubayr, Marwan, Muawiyah, and the Secessionists)." Many Sunni books also talk about Ibn Saba creating trouble, like the book Hadhrat Ayesha Siddiqa by Allamah Syed Sulaiman Nadvi Page 39. What do you think of that.They say Ali, Aisha, Talhah and Zubayr did not want to fight. But others kicked off the fight. They Say Zubayr left after saying "What a tragedy that the Muslims who had acquired the strength of a rock are going to be smashed by colliding with one another" book Hadhrat Ayesha Siddiqa by Allamah Syed Sulaiman Nadvi Page 44. What do you think of that. Also what do you think about what the Shia and Sunni books say about Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr staring off some of these events. You talked about Hajjaj he was from Taif. As were many of the people who killed Hussein. People in Taif never liked Muhammad and then their city was later besieged. The Romans also did not like being challenged. So clearly there could have been many people manipulating the situation. Mukhtar who took on some of the people who killed Hussein was also from Taif. And many Shia also hold him in high regard. When you start looking at the individuals you see some have motives too.--Johnleeds1 (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to make this straight to the point: If you want to continue to write (essentially) blogs as an argument in the Talk Pages, WP is not the place to do them. And I am not engaging you any further in them, since you are rambling on without providing any real evidence (except the more recent polemical, essentially pseudo-revisionist authors), only POV conjecture (while REJECTING so much of the established medieval Islamic literature). When you ACCUSED me of some rather unpleasant and FALSE things which I cited above, it became evident to me that you need to go to Islamic websites and forums and engage people there, not here in WP. I would have been glad to have offered you references to literary material which would answer a lot of your questions. However, you have flatly rejected the classical (mostly) SUNNI Islamic works, so there is no point in even attempting to refer such long-established works to you. You have conveniently managed to enter well over a DOZEN paragraphs and sub-paragraphs in the Muawiyah I article page that are entirely UNCITED. The only further correspondence I am open to from you is your acknowledgment of CITING your sources (period) in your recent entries in the Muawiyah I article page. Other than that, I am not interested in corresponding with you because you clearly ACCUSED me of stating things which I have NEVER stated...Not just one thing, but a few things. To me this is really unacceptable and I found it quite offensive. Please understand this before a complaint to ANI is lodged against you by me. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Flagrantedelicto sorry if I offended you. It was not my intension to offend you. The Abu Bakr thing was a mistake.
Flagrantedelicto I was confused of your views. I did not know what to make of them or where you stood.
You said:
Abu Bakr was ELECTED by the Muslim Council after heavy lobbying by himself and the Meccans who supported him. Umar was APPOINTED by Abu Bakr. Uthman was APPOINTED by Umar. Not once did Ali ibn Abi Talib start a civil war against their Caliphate. To the contrary, he was sought by Caliph Umar as a senior Council member. Now when a reluctant Ali was ELECTED Caliph by the Islamic Council, he gets attacked by all his fellow Muslims (Aisha, Talhah, Zubayr, Marwan, Muawiyah, and the Secessionists).
But then on the Ali article you said: "The Shi'ite self-professed, self-righteous claimed ownership of the Ahl Al Bayt Muhammadi (People of the House of Muhammad) is as much an obstacle to Islamic unity"
Many of the old books I have been going through are very much in the middle ground. They appear to respect Muhammad's family and his companions. In AL-FIQH AL-AKBAR by Abu Hanifa on Page 11
http://www.central-mosque.com/aqeedah/fiqakbar.pdf
It says:
49. The best of people after the Messengers of Allah, alayhem assalatu wassalam, are Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq, then 'Umar bin al-Khattab Al-Faruq; then 'Uthman bin 'Affan Thu-Nurayn [the one with two noors (lights)]; then 'Ali bin Abi Taleb Al-Murtada [the chosen one], may Allah be pleased with them all. They were all [true] worshippers, steadfast on the true path, remained [always] with the truth, and we declare our loyalty and love to all of them.
50. We do not mention any of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah except righteously.
51. We do not declare any Muslim a blasphemer because of a sin, however grave, unless that Muslim considers the sin permissible. Nor do we revoke the status of belief from him; and we continue to call him a believer, genuinely. It is possible to be a sinful believer [deviant] without being a blasphemer.
I agree with many of your statements
On the Ali page you said to me "The sheer level of animosity and hostility of Muslims toward each other is sadly pathetic. The Shias & Salafis despise each other to an extent that is anti-Quranic, to say the least."
Because every one has their own views, I have put a diagram of the early scholars and the books on the Talk section of the Islam page. It is a cut down version of the chain of narration of hadith diagrams. So that people could click on the early books and the author and read the books them selves. I felt that it will be good to stop the arguments. Rather than say Sunnis say this and Shia say this, and then the Sunnis can't even agree on what their views are and the Shias can't even agree what their views and every one is arguing, you could then also say this early books says this and that one says this. And people could read the books them selves. I also put the dates and the locations on too. I am still adding books to it. The earlier the better. It's on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam
It will be good to work with you to improve the content on Wikipedia, sorry about my comments earlier --Johnleeds1 (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citing books[edit]

In your edits to Battle of Siffin, Muawiyah I, Yazid I, etc. please could you add a list of books that you are citing from rather like the Muawiyah I#Sources section that I added in response to a request for clarification that you made on one of the talk pages. You know exactly what the books you are citing are, so this will be very easy for you. The information other readers really need to know are:

  • Title of the book (if it is not in English, please quote the title both in the language of the book and in translation)
  • Author
  • Publisher
  • Date of publication of the edition you are citing
  • ISBN number (if any)
  • If the language the edition of the book you are citing from is not English, please state the language.

Remember we want the information for the edition you are citing.

If you are not actually looking at the book you are citing, but doing second-hand citations, then please make this clear in citations - for if for example you read an article in Mechanics Weekly that is citing Tabari, then you need to say the citation they made, and say cited in Mechanics Weekly together with the name of the article, author of the article, date, etc.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you are undeniably applying a double standard here. In the Yazid I and Muawiyah I article pages there are entries that are UNCITED. In the Muawiyah I page most of the UNCITED entries were rather recent and you are clearly aware of them. We are talking about well over a DOZEN paragraphs worth of UNCITED entries. And those are rather recent UNCITED entries. If you do not request the particular user to either add sources (period) to these citations and request PRECISELY every single item that which you are requesting of me (very conveniently, only recently), and in the exact same itemized manner in which you have requested of me, which you have not apparently done so (as of yet) as is evident in the johnleeds1 WP Talk Page (so it does not give me the impression that you are applying favoritism and partiality toward another WP user/editor in preference to me), then I will regrettably have no option but to lodge a serious concern of double standard requisitions from you to the WP Administrators. I considered you a friend/co-editor here on WP who in the past has been encouraging of my efforts. As of lately, you have been interjecting (while appearing critical) in nearly all of my efforts in editing the WP articles. As you are very well aware of, johnleeds1 falsely represented his cited sources when he listed Bewley's book Muawiyah, Restorer of the Muslim Faith while the source was linked to her self-published (essentially) website blog (of her speech), and NOT her book. In your correspondence with him in the Talk Pages, you show surprising flexibility at the known fact that johnleeds1 had added well over a DOZEN paragraphs/sub-paragraphs that are entirely UNCITED. And yet, you are requesting of me already CITED information. These citations were acceptable to Edward321 and yourself before. Conveniently, now you are suddenly asking for more details. This gives me the impression that you are applying preferential treatment of one WP editor/user over another and not applying a fair, impartial requisition. When in the Muawiyah I article there were nearly a DOZEN improperly cited sources (NO BOOKS were cited, only the authors), you didn't seem to be aware of it. These sources cited entirely without book titles, were also relatively recent, but that didn't seem to concern you until I brought attention to it. And as for all those UNCITED entries by johnleeds1, you are surprisingly flexible and appear to be almost nonchalant about them. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I did not request for clarification of those nearly dozen incompletely cited sources (eg., no book titles were cited). What I specifically stated was: Speaking of vague citations to books the editors may have never read, how do you feel about page numbers being cited in this article along with the last name of the authors (and the year of publication)--but NO BOOKS are cited whatsoever...(?) My statement was in response to what appeared to be an allegation (by you) of WP editors/users who may or may not have read material they have cited. Which is interesting since johnleeds1 (up to that time) only cited one entry to Bewley's book Muawiyah, Restorer of the Muslim Faith, while all the others were directly linked to Bewley's self-published website blog, and not the cited book; if anything, this appeared to be a clear-cut case of a WP user/editor not having read the cited book. These edits were deleted by WP editor Kansas Bear; the one entry he forgot, I deleted. We both left alone the one entry which (at that time) actually cited a page number.
Also, this statement by you: I suspect that some of the vague citations are to books that the editors have never read, which is why the editors cannot give the edition and page number. it is easy to do that - you read in some magazine or web-page that some book says something, and you add the information to Wikipedia and a citation to the book - if you are going to do this, the honest way is state what you are doing (and there are proper formats on Wikipedia for doing this).--Toddy1 (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC) --Is an allegation or even a virtual indictment of dishonesty from WP editors/users. Now I couldn't quite figure out was it in reference to ALL WP editors/users in general or me specifically. Either way, such a statement could be perceived as almost accusatory of WP editors/users and rather offensive.
The clarification for which I actually requested from you was for this comment you made to me in the Muawiyah I Talk Page: As far as I can tell, your objection to Bewley is that she is not one of your lot. I never did get a reply from you as to what "lot" you were referring to in regards to me (?) --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flagrantedelicto, Toddy also asked me to add reference on 21 April 2013 like he asked you. I have just been extremely busy at work and will have more time soon and will update the article. Flagrantedelicto I don't mind if my changes are removed, I will re-adding them when I get some time and add the references. Flagrantedelicto sorry if I upset you earlier. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This New Section heading from Johnleeds1 Talk Page entered by Toddy1 :
Hazrat Muawiyah
Thank you for the improvements you have made to the article on Muawiyah I.[2] The new section has some citations, which is great. Would it be possible for you to add some more citations please. You must have some sources for the information you amended, and and also for the new paragraphs you added that lack citations. It is much easier for you to add the citations for this than for other people.
I also have one quibble. You have a paragraph that starts: "Sunni scholars interpret..." This is weasel-like. Please either give citations to a secondary source that says this, or amend to "Sunni scholars, such as X, Y and Z, interpret...", which would also need citing.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Only Muslims address a historical or religious figure of Islam with the honorific title of HAZRAT. When Toddy1 did this on Johnleeds1 Talk Page, this gives a strong indication of possible Islamic affiliation by WP user-editor Toddy1. This affiliation, from speculation, could be that Toddy1 is a possible revert/convert to Islam, or someone who is headed in that direction. Only someone of SUNNI or SALAFI/WAHHABI persuasion would address Caliph Muawiyah I as HAZRAT. It is almost certain that NO NON-Muslim WP editor/user would have addressed Caliph Muawiyah I as HAZRAT MUAWIYAH. However, even among the vast SUNNI population, there is a half percentage who DO NOT address the Umayyad caliph Muawiyah I as HAZRAT. Among the SUNNI Muslim populace, there is a division of those who address Caliph Muawiyah I as HAZRAT, and those who DO NOT. The point of all this being that if Toddy1 is presenting herself/himself as possibly a NON-Muslim, entirely neutral WP editor, then this revealing documented information has to be brought to the forefront and acknowledged. Not that whatever Toddy1's theological affiliation may be makes any difference as a WP editor/user, but it does make a difference if Toddy1 is acting as a mediator in the Yazid I and Muawiyah I WP article pages. This could manifest itself in potential favoritism and partiality toward Salafi/Wahhabi influenced views of nearly half of the Sunni Muslim population. Then the objectivity and neutrality as a mediating WP editor/user is clearly jeopardized. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flagrantedelicto, you have to admit that people call this man Muawiyah everything under that sun. Good and bad. Some of the things they call him are very abusive. So it would be very hard to administer any such article and keep the foul language off.
You were talking about that gentleman Tahir ul Qadri, so I looked on the internet for this man and Muawiya and came across the youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5zjJlpbXCM The title also says Hazrat Ameer Muawiya r.a & Moula Ali (r.a) by Dr Tahir ul Qadri
Then you look at the comments and people appear to be swearing at Tahir ul Qadri for having the title of the video Hazrat Ameer Muawiya r.a & Moula Ali (r.a). Is this the type of uncivilized language you want on Wikipedia. Because without administration that is what it would become. There needs to be civilized behavior on an encyclopedia. Kids read it too for their homework. Toddy didn't just ask you to add references, he also asked me to add references.
Flagrantedelicto talking about the old books, I also got a lot of resistance when I tried to use them as references. People said that they do not allow Hadith or primary sources, but there is lot of material from some of these books already on there. I realized that the older the books and the closer to Madina the author, the closer their views. But it has to be the actual book written by that person, not some one else writing hundreds of years later saying that these were the views of that person. So now I have put a diagram there so that people could read the books them selves. If you look at the old books especially written by the scholars in Madina their views are very close. There should be academic standards, and objective, factual information, not abusive language on Wikipedia. A lot of the old books are more academic in nature. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Toddy1 can speak for herself/himself. You don't need to speak for Toddy1. Secondly, I have analyzed some of your efforts in the ALI WP article and Talk Page and you seem to have been put in check by fellow WP editors Seyyed, Qwyrxian, and eh bien mon prince from some of your POV pushing. Your views do not appear to reflect traditional SUNNI views simply by the very comments you have made in your responses. No mainstream SUNNI-oriented WP editor/user would (essentially) REJECT all of the classical, medieval SUNNI Imams and Ulama the way you have done so. And that too in favor of a relative novice (like an Aisha Bewley) in comparison. We are talking about some of the most PROMINENT and EMINENT names of the SUNNI creed (Imam Hanbal, Imam Suyuti, etc., etc.). You quoted Ibn Taymiyyah which is almost a trademark for Salafi/Wahhabi POV in the Muawiyah I article page in the Legacy section. There is nothing wrong with having Salafi/Wahhabi POV (for those who are Salafi/Wahhabi), just so long as one acknowledges it and does not misrepresent it as mainstream SUNNI POV; many SUNNIS have serious differences with Salafi/Wahhabi POV. That is my main concern being a SUNNI myself. What has been happening in WP Islamic articles is that Salafi/Wahhabi POV has been represented as SUNNI POV, while SUNNI POV has been represented as Shi'ite POV; for example, the VAST majority of sources cited in the Shi'ite POV sections are ALL SUNNI; this is clear misrepresentation of academic facts.
Regrettably, your false accusation of me likening Aisha Bewley (because she's "white") to colonialists-imperialists, as well as falsely implying that I meant the UK as a colonialist-imperialist nation, was enough for me to lose total respect for your editorial ethics. I mean just step back and reflect on your efforts here on WP...You cannot seem to even remember with whom you are debating. You mistook your debate with me for a debate with some other WP editor/user and accused me of something I never stated regarding the first Rashidun Khalifah Abu Bakr. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The bit I added saying "There has been ample testimony to Mu'awiya's abilities. Ibn Taymiyya said," was what Aisha Bewley wrote. I did not go through the works of Ibn Taymiyya and add this. I have never read his books. I am no Salafi/Wahhabi or Sunni or Shia or Christian or Jew or Muslim. Wikipedia is not a religious site and there are no rules stating that you have to be a certain religion to contribute on Wikipedia. I can't recall any prophet saying that they were Salafi/Wahhabi or Sunni or Shia or Christian, Jew or Muslim. Even if you look at many of the early Muslim books they all said "Worship God, be just and kind to one another". Looking at the books, I was under the impressions that Muslims believed in one god and the religion of Abraham, the same religion as the rest of the Prophets, but if you look at Wikipedia they appear to believe in all kinds of things. I do read old book. The early scholars in Madina were very close to that ideal and did not believe in sects. I read their books because there is great wisdom in all their books. What happens is that a Prophet talks about human equality, justice and asks people to be kind to one another. Then over time you get some people saying that they are the chosen people and some how better than every one else and use religion to justify their superiority and then you get things like Zionism. You also get casts like the Bramin in India. Then you get rulers who form sects to divide people to make them fight for them. Then you get so called religious leaders who love Money and will do anything for money. But if you read the early books you realize that many of the Prophets worked hard and suffered for righteousness to earn their place, they were not proud and did not say that they were better than everyone else because of their ancestry etc. I do not reject the works of the classical, early SUNNI Imams and Ulama. Their views are valid. I was going through the book "Stories of the Prophets by Ibn Kathir AD-Damishqa 700-774 H. It is an old book and appeared quite balanced and showed how hard these Prophets worked. The views of these early writers are very balanced where as on Wikipedia where you get extreme views. My issues with Seyyed was that he kept on deleting the referenced material I added from some of these early books because be classes it as a primary source where as he added material from the same books. That is why I put a diagram up on some of the pages of the early scholars and books so that people could read the books them selves, I just want these old books up there as you do. That way people could research them selves. It also reduces arguments. I was talking to MezzoMezzo about this and he said:
I agree with your latest comment wholeheartedly, but since it isn't directly related to Sunni Islam I thought I would respond here. Yes, the views of early jurists concur quite a bit and they were less prone to being influence by political movements than modern Muslim clerics. And yes, after observing Islam-related articles on Wikipedia for around six years now, I do agree with your statement that most Islam-related articles are either Muslims pushing a pro-Islam political agenda, Christian pushing an anti-Islam agenda or Muslim sects bickering among one another over who's right and who's wrong. Islam-related articles are sorely in need of some objective contributions which aim simply to provide the readers with information, not to convince them of a certain viewpoint.The difficult, of course, is how that should be done. These six years have also taught me that fighting against this lack of neutrality will make you the target of insults, slurs, stalking and reporting you falsely to moderators for things you didn't do. If you're willing to face all that then perhaps there is some kind of task force on Wikipedia we could join and focus on improving articles one by one. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
When I put up the diagram and MezzoMezzo said:
Ha ha, yes, everything you've found is true. If you go far back enough, you will ultimately find the leaders of madhhabs having studied with the same chain of teachers going back to Sahaba. It's a startling revelation, especially considering that hundreds of years later, people claiming to follow those madhhabs would later persecute one another. Have you considered putting this diagram in your sandbox and seeing how it would work and where it would be appropriate? MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC) --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see, it's starting to dawn on you now. "It" being the early connections between all the Muslim schools of though, "it" being that thing which hasn't dawned on most Muslims. I remember when I discovered that too; realizing "it" is like a blind man suddenly being able to see. It's fascinating, isn't it?
Anyway, yes, what you're saying is true. There is a lot of misinformation about Islam on Wikipedia, but that is in part due to misinformation on Islam both in the West and in Muslim countries, and even Western societies and Muslim societies. The most objective research you will find is usually from non-Muslim institutions like Brill Publishers or McGill University.
MezzoMezzo was right. May be I should start looking at the Christianity articles. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have communicated with you all that I wish to communicate. I would greatly appreciate it if you NO LONGER inundate my personal WP Talk Page with what comes across as unnecessary diatribe. If you continue to flood my Talk Page with unwelcome communication, you leave me little option but to go ahead and lodge a complaint with ANI. This will be my final cautioning to you. If you want to exchange in ongoing theological dissertations or debates, please feel free to do so in the various Islamic forum websites where such communications are held. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I guess most people looking at the Islam pages on Wikipedia want to see what Islam is all about and compare it with the other religions. They want to know what Islam is and what Islam says about why people exist and what Islam has to offer during this day and age. But currently the Islam pages are more about politics than about Islam. It will be good to shift them more towards what Islam says. Recently some one added "Part of a series on Qur'an" on the Islam page and that improved the article.
Flagrantedelicto I know you are busy now, but it will be good if we could put all the very old books in a diagram, with the authors and when they lived and where. I have put them in a diagram on the talk section of the Islam page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam
Then people could click on the links and read the books them selves. Many of these old books are in the center ground and are a snapshot of the time. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Muawiyah I may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • against Ali, whom the Shia Muslims believe was [[Succession to Muhammad|Muhammad's true successor]]); secondly, for the breaking of the treaty he made with Hasan ibn Ali, after the death of Hasan ibn

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Muawiyah I may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Ali's forces lost 25,000, while Muawiyah's forces lost 45,000.<ref>name="files.libertyfund.org">Gibbon, Edward. ''The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire''. Ch. L, Page 98. New
  • against Ali, whom the Shia Muslims believe was [[Succession to Muhammad|Muhammad's true successor]]); secondly, for the breaking of the treaty he made with Hasan ibn Ali, after the death of Hasan ibn

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem attacks on other editors[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Toddy1. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Muawiyah I‎ that didn't seem very civil, but it has not been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have a complaint about other editors, the right place to make it is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, not the article talk page. Thank you. --Toddy1 (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue as to what alleged "ad hominem" you are referring to. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Requesting Your Mediation, Please[edit]

Walekum'Salam,

You requested for my mediation, but involving me will be more problamatic for you as I'm known openly for my POV regaridng Islamic articles, I'm a declared Shia and MezzoMezzo & Johnleads are well aware of my POV. Lets see how I can be of any help at the article but please don't rely on me in this case.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 06:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Faizhaider: Everybody has their biases and opinions; it's human. As Stephen Jay Gould said, objectivity isn't to deny having bias; it's to be fair in despite of one's natural bias. I'm sure Johnleads will be ok with the addition as well. Nobody can fault a mediator for trying his best. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MezzoMezzo: thanks for your words.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 10:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am a declared SUNNI. And I would like if you could carefully read through the Muawiyah I Talk Page of the current archive. I know it is a lot of material, but it is essential for you to fully understand the nature of the obvious double standard and partiality being applied by both the above MezzoMezzo, as well as Toddy1. Both of whom are essentially voicing the same positions. As for Johnleeds1, we did come to a mutual understanding which has common ground after differences of perspectives and some attrition. MezzoMezzo and Toddy1 (whom I get the strong feeling are together on this), appear to be a different matter. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before responding to your request I had already read the Talk page of the article. I have tried to rope in neutral editors to look into the issue at page but their response may take some time due to time-zone difference. As I said, I'll try to be of any help at the article.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 10:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I welcome any help I can get from the unfairness and partiality I have been experiencing from Toddy1 and (now all of sudden) MezzoMezzo. If you have read the exchanges in the Muawiyah Talk Page, then it becomes obvious to the most casual observer that there is undeniable double standards being applied. This MezzoMezzo said and did NOTHING when his friend Johnleeds1 inundated the article with dozens of UNCITED paragraphs/sub-paragraphs. And may never had done so until I had brought attention to it to Toddy1 (and Toddy1's own double standards toward me). The reason being an obvious shared pro-Muawiyah bias. Toddy1 (who gave the impression of being a non-Muslim) titled a new section header in Johnleeds1 personal Talk Page HAZRAT MUAWIYAH--Which almost no non-Muslim WP editor would have used. This reveals a Muslim affiliation, not to mention Toddy1's own admission of having a copy of Aisha Bewley's book Muawiyah, Restorer of the Muslim Faith. Toddy1 further referred to Husayn ibn Ali as the Rebel when objecting to Johnleeds1 adding Husayn's name to the Wiki Talk Islam Page on WP--While openly objecting as to why Johnleeds1 did not add Muawiyah's name to that list. I brought this up in the Muawiyah Talk Page in detail. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IslamFlagrantedelicto (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@MezzoMezzo. Your Stephen Jay Gould adage to Faiz Haider certainly sounds profound. It would be nice if you applied it to yourself. Especially, since you displayed little fairness when you deleted the ENTIRE Shia View section (which was amply cited with references) in the Muawiyah I WP article page. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've sought mediation and brother Faiz is working on it. Why are you still commenting here in such a demeaning way? What is your goal? And how would it not constitute a personal attack? I didn't even say anything to you here, now you're just being rude. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing demeaning in what I have stated except maybe in your own perception. Furthermore, you need to re-evaluate what is and what is not a personal attack. YOU launched a personal attack when flagrantly accusing me of copy-pasting my contributions to the Muawiyah I article. Don't get confused here. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I share the perception that your mocking and bullying comments about other editors are demeaning.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is your perception. And it appears to be a false one. There is no instance of bullying at all. Furthermore, researching someone’s past editorial conflict, and then applying some of the differences from that particular conflict to a current situation which is not at all related in terms of the way this particular issue is being approached is counter-productive. And the WP Admin will most probably see right through such tactics. There has been no concern (or perception) of bullying by me to any WP user/editor in the current issue with the Muawiyah I article. It appears that both of you WP editors (MezzoMezzo and Toddy1) give the impression that you two are collaborating in a campaign of unfair accusations (and/or concerns) toward me. The question that should be sincerely asked by the two of you is whether such a practice is ethical (?) The reason why I include the both of you is because it is obvious that you two are almost precisely echoing or mirroring each other’s concerns. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread[edit]

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Flagrant, I'm going to make this really simple. Unless you want to take a forced break from Wikipedia, stop speculating about other editors' personal lives, and restrict yourself to commenting on content. This warning will be repeated on ANI. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by a forced break (?) --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about blocking your account. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, do you have the authorization to do this (?) And also I'm going to make this even simpler: Don't threaten me. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on Muawiyah I[edit]

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Muawiyah I.

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.

Continued edit warring on Muawiyah I or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Toddst1 (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Salam! I think the comments you are putting on Talk:Muawiyah I in your defence will be of more help if you put them on the ANI against you @ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Three solid days of bullying, insults and incivility by User:Flagrantedelicto. And another tip be discreet, gentle and put your point in as less words as possible and in one go and only reply when someone contests your claims or put new claims against you. Good-luck!--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 16:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

W.A.S. Thank you. I shall do so. I really appreciate your assistance. I think you are aware of what is going on with this issue. And thanks for getting CBW to mediate. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing. 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 following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Ironholds (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be clear; it's a week because it's intended to offer you a chance to reflect, think through what's happened, and take the multiple pieces of advice you've been given to calm down and approach things in a more constructive manner. Next time this happens, it will be indefinite. Ironholds (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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).

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

Request reason:

There is no real reason to block me as I have made my contributions to the article. In the week's time, the other WP editors in question who did not make any effort to clean up the state this article was in can delete material which took hours of effort to construct.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The fact that you're bemoaning the block because people who disagree with you might do things to the article in the meantime is...a pretty good demonstration of precisely why you're blocked - a total failure to get that there is an issue with your conduct, not with your content. Ironholds (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion. And it is hardly an accurate one. If you or anyone that has properly read the Talk Pages in Muawiyah I from a neutral position, and has not been able to grasp what has really been transpiring from A to Z, then it is likey hopeless to request to do so. Another WP Admin who does not share your obvious, now apparent bias would be welcomed to handle this issue. Not you. You have totally failed to perceive that there is an issue with the conduct of Toddy1 and MezzoMezzo as well. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I am saddened by recent events. I valued your contributions to the articles you edited.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being blocked does not mean that you can then edit with your IP. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you free to work on the Muawiyah I page now. I have been collecting everything together in one place on the temporary page set up by Faiz. It is not finished and still under construction I have left the sections that you usually contribute to for you. It will be changed a lot over the next month or so. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was away from Wikipedia for a while and just realized that Flagrantedelicto is blocked. It may be worth letting Flagrantedelicto come back now and give him a second chance. I know he argues a lot but he also makes a contribution. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see what contributions he ever made. He would only dispute material in reliable sources, edit war to defend questionable ones and never actually made a positive contribution via reliably sourced material to any of the...what was it, only four articles he ever actually edited. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flagrantedelicto&oldid=1028322432"