User talk:Pecher

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Israeli Apartheid debate

The Israeli Apartheid debate continues at WP:ANI#Admin protecting, then editing article.Timothy Usher 01:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And now on Talk:Israeli apartheid, Talk:Israeli apartheid/RS.Timothy Usher 07:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

CrazyRussian's RfA

File:Motherussia.jpg

Hello Pecher, and thank you for your support at my request for adminship, which ended with an awe-inspiring 86/1/2 result. I plan to do much with my shiny new tools - but I'll start slow and learn the ropes at first. Please deluge me with assignments and requests - I enjoy helping out. For Mother Russia!! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:FairNBalanced

Based upon your commentary on User:Timothy Usher's talk page it seems safe to say that you didn't actually see the image. Netscott 17:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I see, well I suppose I have less doubts about your bias now. Thanks for the discussion. Netscott 18:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people

Not sure if you've been following the talk on Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but while I agree with his inclusion in the Category:Anti-Semitism it is presumptous of editors to include him in Category:Anti-Semitic people. Netscott 19:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If your "whitewash" comment was true I surely wouldn't agree with his inclusion in the Anti-Semitism category now would I? Netscott 19:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There's only one individual of note that I have seen referring to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as an anti-Semite and that is Ehud Olmert who's anything but neutral on the matter. Is there some other notable sources referring to him that I should be aware of? Netscott 19:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

They do count that is for sure but neither have actually come out saying "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" is an anti-Semite... they referred to him in terms of anti-Semitism which explains why the anti-semitism category indeed makes more sense for his inclusion over anti-semitic people. Netscott 19:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if it was pro-jewish sophistry related editing I engaged in when I made this first edit, this second edit and this thrid one to counteract whitewashers relative to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Not sure what to think at this point. Netscott 20:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Reversions to Mosque

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing.

I'm sure you are familiar with the three-revert rule and so this comment may not be necessary. Nevertheless, the mosque article is volatile enough as it is; we don't need any revert warring. And using pop-ups to make revert warring faster and easier is a definite no-no. joturner 20:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad

Seems to me like there are enough people murdered at Muhammad's specific instruction that we could have a category for them. What do you think? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• See Category:People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad and prepare for the inevitable demands for deletion of the category. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion continues [1]. I wonder who will be the first to put it up for deletion? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Banu Nadir

Nice work on this article. I've made a few minor changes. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Israel Shamir

Please see the AN/I entry on User:Israel shamir here. Homey 19:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Islam sentiment

Why are you removing this category? BhaiSaab ^talk 14:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Are you kidding me? Lovelace - wants people to flush the Qur'an down the toilet. ibn Warraq - why do I even have to explain? Pat Robertson - [2] Robert Spencer - read his books. Johnson - go to his website. BhaiSaab ^talk 14:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed it and I am working on undoing their obvious POV editing. -- Karl Meier 16:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On June 16, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Banu Nadir, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Banu Nadir

Your article is coming under some heavy attacks. Someone even slapped a cleanup tag on the Expulsion section. Also see the comments on the talk page. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 17:56

Delightful. It's funny that the article is "intended to defame the Prophet" when the sources are virtually all Islamic texts that viewed Muhammad as the perfect exemplar. Clearly the authors of those sources weren't at all uncomfortable with the idea of wiping out the Banu Nadir; they regarded it as quite admirable. Funny, I went through the same thing with Banu Qurayza. Several editors wanted to insert material in there to the effect that the Banu Qurayza men and women were guilty in their own murder and rape- basically "they had it coming". Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of section title: "Relationship between religious and racial anti-Semitism"

Please take a look [3]. --Doright 19:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Exact Phrasing of Source

What's the exact phrasing in the Encyclopedia of Islam that leads to the conclusion that Islamic law bans non-Muslims from entering mosques. And perhaps a bit of context before and after would be nice. joturner 21:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, unless you have further objections, I'm going to remove the {{disputed}} tag from the style section of the mosque article (or perhaps you could do it). See Talk:Mosque#Styles section. joturner 22:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

A big pixelated WikiThanks for the Resilient Barnstar! That's probably the longest I've held it together on a talk page in quite a while :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 00:59

Banu Nadir and NPOV

Please stop removing the neutrality tag from the article... it really is disputed (since... the talk page is full of arguing) and just because you don't agree with their basis doesn't mean that it isn't. So, give it a few days? Thanks. gren グレン 17:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Flummoxed

Say, I'm flummoxed about something. I just stumbled on the Wikipedia:Iranian Wikipedians' notice board? I was wondering if there are more boards like that. It struck me as a deck-stacking mechanism, similar to other notice boards that have been deleted, but maybe I am mistaken. What's your opinion?--Mantanmoreland 23:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't even know there were noticeboards until the other day. Can anyone set them up? Maybe there can be a "tolerance issues" noticeboard, for people like myself who believe in tolerance. --Mantanmoreland 11:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I hear you. But what we have here is a notice board devoted to people of a certain nationality, not to a particular topic. Why not an Jewish Wikipedians' notice board or an Irish Wikipedians' notice board?--Mantanmoreland 11:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for clarifying. Well, it is too bad these boards are not policed.--Mantanmoreland 13:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Some More Changes to Mosque

From Talk:Mosque#What About Now?:

I made some changes to the article, using only the Qur'an to present the idea that polytheists are prohibited from mosques but letting the information about Omar II speak for itself. Essentially, I wanted to not make a conclusion on whether Islamic law prohibits monotheist non-Muslims from entering mosques (as we can't seem to make that conclusion clearly ourselves) and instead let the facts speak for themselves. What does everything think of this version? joturner 02:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comments would be appreciated. joturner 02:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

On Talk:Mosque, Raul said: If there are no other issues, I'd be happy to reschedule this article for the main page. Oh, and sorry if you have Talk:Mosque on your watchlist and these messages are unnecessary; I'm sure this will be the last. joturner 00:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/728863.html

can you help

I want to write an article on red dawn but need to create a disamb page first since an article by that name already exist

see this for background:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3264921,00.html

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=%22red%20dawn%22&sa=N&tab=wn

FYI suggest you read all of it

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3265297,00.html

Request to mediate

I believe you violated WP:3RR, which states that reverting "means undoing the actions of another editor" when you recently reported me for a 3RR violation after I added a totallydisputed tag to Banu Qaynuqa when reverting to the version I preferred would have been a 3RR violation. I wish to mediate this dispute. Will you agree to mediation? Publicola 17:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I will be asking for dispute resolution on the following questions:

1. Should a 3RR block occur after an editor chooses to insert a dispute tag instead of reverting, when reverting would violate 3RR, inserting the dispute tag returns the article to a previous version, and the dispute tag in question has never been removed except through reverts?
2. Would such a block be within the letter of WP:3RR which states that reverting "means undoing the actions of another editor"? Why or why not?
3. Would such a block be within the spirit of WP:3RR? Why or why not?

Publicola 17:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Banu Nadir mediation questions

Please help Banu Nadir mediation succeed by providing your opinions in answer to your column on the Talk:Banu Nadir#Dispute location identification answer grid (referring to the questions in the preceeding section.) With luck, this will help narrow the focus of the dispute. Publicola 08:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR report

Greetings Pecher, please be aware of this 3RR report concerning yourself. Thanks. Netscott 12:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Weather report

Weather report.Timothy Usher 04:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Acre's weather report. Netscott 09:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What are your arguments for "no basis for dispute" on the Anti-Semitic people category?

I would like to have you point out to me why there is no basis for dispute, and why this category was not renamed. Respectfully, --Drboisclair 15:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why did you twice sabotage Category:Anti-Islam activists?

When I attempt to add entries to this category (note I only do indisputable ones, not debatable ones like Daniel Pipes, Victor Davis Hanson or Richard Perle), you keep reverting them. What is wrong with this category? --GCarty 11:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi How are you ?

Zeq

Barnstar

I think I am somewhat less "celebrated" at the end of this week than I was at its beginning, given the number of controversies I have found myself involved with.[4][5][6] But your sentiment is appreciated. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

NPA

I warned Faisal when he said "I guess we know what religion this editor is" on Talk:Muhammad.... so, now I warn you. "in Faisal's religion, Muhammad's actions are viewed in this way"... don't speculate... I don't care if your purpose was to degrade or to be cleverly illustrative. Stop that kind of crap because it just creates an annoying and worthless tension. gren グレン 03:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

... and yet you call BhaiSaab's saying you misinterpreted something as a personal attack. You needn't accept the warning but you need to keep article talk pages more civil. Just because someone identifies as Muslim (explicitly on their parge or not) does not mean you can (and moreso it isn't helpful) to make assumptions about aspects of their faith. If you start saying "gren's ideology is to use cheap meat in order to rip off the customer" I will be needlessly offended and even though my user pages cleary says that I am taco bell it does not make it proper or constructive to mention that on talk pages. gren グレン 09:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point. It doesn't matter even if he said it. On the talk page it was used in a pejorative manner which led to you two bickering. The talk pages of so many pages have digressed into similar behavior. My point is that that needs to stop from everybody. So, no need to reply to this, just please, do make your best efforts to avoid the current atmosphere of bickering. Thank you. gren グレン 09:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Surprise, not

Surprise, surprise. Netscott 12:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There's something to be said for folks like User:FairNBalanced as one could not be mistaken for where they stand. Netscott 13:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you figure "vote stacking"? I'd understand such allegations if I was spamming or posting VOTE AGAINST!!!! or even posting on the Muslim Guild, but this I did not do. Lest you join User:Timothy Usher in becoming known for demonstrating a lack of good faith (albeit seemingly misguidedly in your case being that you're not a native speaker) I strongly suggest you remove such an allegation. Netscott 14:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral posts on WP:ISLAM about Islam related topics (and categories for that matter) are perfectly within the mission statement of the Islam Wikiproject. Perhaps you were not aware of that... I strongly suggest you look up a definition of vote-stacking before you again make foolish statements that lend an air of bad faith to what you do. Netscott 14:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Your conduct and your statements are not you, even User:Timothy Usher can confirm this. Sorry but this is going nowhere and is pointless... I'm removing your unfounded claim of votestacking from my talk page. Any further related unfounded claims shall be removed from my talk page summarily without further discussion from myself. Netscott 14:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet the phrase "known for demonstrating a lack of good faith" is of course not about conduct, but an allegation that someone lacks good faith - an indefeasable charge you are quick to see hints of in the statements of others, and equally quick to include in your own. I am hardly participating in this venemous forum any longer, so I'd appreciate it if you'd find someone else to accuse (as it appears you have).Timothy Usher 17:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, demonstrating? Sounds like conduct to me. If I had said "known for his lack of good faith"... you'd have an argument. What's up with all of the Islam-bashing of late? Seriously even User:Zora has taken notice of it. Netscott 17:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"To demonstrate" is a conduct, but the object of this conduct is the imputed state. For instance, were one to say that you are "showing yourself to be [pejorative]", would that, too, be an commentary on "conduct", on the mere ground that "to show" is a verb?

The point is that such sentences are wholly about contributors, rather than any particular contribution or conduct. Because they are indefeasable and unanswerable ("I do have good faith" is an answer, but one you'll not allow), they accomplish nothing beyond a poisoning of the well.

Additionally, your definition of "good faith" is far too narrow and presumptious - contributions sincerely meant to improve the encyclopedia, according to any criteria, are good-faith contributions, and contributors sincerely here to improve it are good-faith contributors. It seems you've redefined it to mean, approaching a subject with an outlook which meets with your moral approval. Such outlooks are known as points of view, not degrees of good faith.Timothy Usher 18:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher, when you're telling me to "Stop defending anti-semites.", you're demonstrating a lack of good faith and when you repetitively do that you become known for it. Your arguments have no foundations. Unlike yourself, I've not been defending anyone demonstrating anti-anything. Netscott 18:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't check whether Timothy indeed said it, but if he did, then it should be a broadly correct description of your behavior. It has nothing to do with good faith: good faith is a sincere desire to improve the quality of Wikipedia; commenting about the conduct of other users has nothing to do with good faith by definition. Pecher ^Talk 20:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

When I'm demonstrably falsely accused of doing something and no apology is forthcoming after such has been illustrated... that'd be a demonstration of lack of good faith. Netscott 20:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No, see above as to what good faith actually is. Pecher ^Talk 20:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not accept that it's false, nor did I have only one instance in mind. But as you mentioned one, "defending" isn't so strict as to require that you went on ANI and said that all aspects of his conduct are acceptable. Maintaining that he has good points that ought to be made more civilly (just how one might civilly restate some of them, I've no idea), and encouraging him to come back to do so, is a sort of defense.

Netscott, if there is an element of bad-faith here, it's that I actually don't think it all that productive to spend our time here raising questions about one another's motives, as I'll admit was implicit - these questions may or may not be good ones, but they can't be answered, and only contribute to a distrustful atmosphere of prosecution and rebuke. However, I was not the one who started down this road, and I in good faith believed that to see yourself subjected to such questions - whatever their answer - might have helped illustrate how the dialogue of insinuation and guilt by association appears from the other side. We can ask if your post above (re Acre) was meant to compare the founding of Israel with the Holocaust; we can ask if your objections to a category documenting the deaths of Jews might not reflect some sympathy with the narrative in which their slaying was justified; we can ask if removing Ahmadinejad from the Anti-Semitic people category might not be an assertion that his Holocaust denial and call for Israel's destruction is not, in fact, anti-Semitic, etc. We might even ask why you recently filed a false 3RR report against a Jewish editor. We can ask all these questions and, in doing so, construct a narrative in which an answer appears obvious, even as it is inherently untestable and thus irrefutable. That is the very mode of discourse to which you and your former associate His excellency had subjected me, now applied to you. I ask you in good faith, do you think it fair?Timothy Usher 21:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

what do you think about this

[7] see also talk page of that artixcle. Zeq 20:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is bad as it create a non NPOV section. Zeq 20:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21186_Hamas-_Islam_Will_Conquer_US_and_Britain&only

"unreferenced"

Pecher, it is not a good idea to slap {{unreferenced}} on a well-developed article like Islam. The template is intended for undeveloped articles that cite no sources whatsoever. Most of the aritcle is completely undisputed. The controversial statements are referenced. It would be WP:POINT to add {{fact}} to every sentence that has no footnote. In particular, many statements that contain a wikilink to another article may be considered summaries of information there, and the sub-article may be consulted for reference. I suggest you pick your five to ten main grievances with the article and add {{fact}} to those. After these have been addressed to your satisfaction, you may tag the next five. Such would be a constructive approach, while your action at present simply means that you are unhappy in some unspecified way, but decline to bother to detail why. dab (ᛏ) 12:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

no. leaving the template unspecified implies that the entire article is unreferenced, which is not true. This is not helpful, because we do not know what you are objecting to. At least use the template's argument to explain what you mean. See Template:Unreferenced. dab (ᛏ) 08:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq

Pecher, how is it specious for me to complain about Zeq opening an article about me under my real name posting my personal details when he did precisely that after coming off his 48 hour block for vote-stacking, a block he blames me for? Even Moshe rebuked Zeq for this. Please do not dismiss a complaint as "specious" when you admit you haven't seen the article in question. Please strike out your comments on AN/I. Homey 13:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

it's not reasonable to expect someone to violate their own privacy in order to make a privacy complaint - rather self-defeating, actually. As I said, I can email the url of the deleted article to any interested admin. Also, your claim of speciousness is unfair and untrue, please remove it. Homey 14:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

See also [8] Homey 14:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Charming post. And what of disciplining Zeq for violating Wikipedia:Harassment or are your friends exempt from policy?Homey 18:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

luck

It took me a while to figure this out, but I suppose your message relates to football? The Ukrainians played well, and if you manage to not score in two full hours, you have to accept losing at a turn of chance, so there :) dab (ᛏ) 12:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Alleged Killing of the Jews in Khaybar

Hey Pecher, what's the matter with you?! Obviously, you are no longer interested in objectivity and fairness, and intend to push your view through suppressing the many sources that contradict it. I'm sorry, but this is not acceptable for me. I mentioned Stillman's opinion in a footnote, and that's what it deserves. But you mustn't simply ignore the fact that his is merely a minority opinion! Editorius 13:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You really should be able to live with my current formulation, which is definitely not "apologetic".Editorius 14:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I blame Muhammad for the negative things he actually did, and not for the things he possibly did.Editorius 14:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The tenor of this discussion on both sides is unnecessarily heated. You're both valuable editors and I'm learning a lot from following your arguments. However, I'd enjoy it a lot more if the accusations of bad faith were to stop.Timothy Usher 22:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:His excellency warning

From reading just that sequence, the single "how did you get to be an admin?" didn't seem like that much of a personal attack. Less than civil, certainly, but I expect a certain amount of thick skin to be an admin job requirement. (One of the main reasons I supported Crz for admin was because of my belief he could stay cool under pressure, in fact.) I admit I don't know any of the backstory, however, so you may be right. I won't make a federal case out of it. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi question

Pecher, what was specifically wrong with User:Aminz's edit? Is there a section of related talk you can direct me too? Netscott 21:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well when I'm assuming good faith then I'm inclined to believe that it was correct. But I'm informing myself more and more on the subject and wondered about your revert (not even an editorial comment explaining your revert). Netscott 21:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Before I in good faith revert your revert I'm going to ask you again, what was wrong with his edit? Netscott 21:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Important RfC

Hi. Why don't you take part in this RfC case? Ukrained 22:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

A case in which you are a party (Banu Nadir) has been submitted to mediation by the Mediation Cabal. Please review the proposed solution in this case. Geo. 19:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Just because a side submits a version

does not mean that it will be put in the final version. Bearing that in mind, please go to the case page and type AGREE or DISAGREE to indicate your feelings toward the proposed solution. Geo. 19:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Fall of Constantinople

I'm not near my books with me at the moment, but I'll look it up as soon as I can. Hopefully the author I have in mind didn't rely on Gibbon, since I don't think of Gibbon as reliable in this area.

Googling around though, we have [9], which is something at least. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Barra binte Samawal

It should not have been speediet, the mother of a queen, and the wife of a king is not speedy material. And it is spelled binte, not bint--Striver 19:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Check the Encyclopedia of Islam. It's "bint". --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3271274,00.html

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3271267,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5144438.stm

Asma bint Marwan

Could you please watch out for the Asma bint Marwan article? BhaiSaab is insisting on removing some essential information from the article, in order to prove a WP:Point about my editing in another article. -- Karl Meier 22:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

His excellency (talk · contribs) ArbComm case filed.

You have been nominated as an involved user.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#His_excellency_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29. - Merzbow 00:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3272837,00.html

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 08:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pecher, it's my understanding that the ArbCom members don't do much with the statements on the main Arbitration Case pages once they have opened a case, so this edit might not do much good. At this point all the action in the case is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency/Evidence, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency/Workshop, and the associated talk pages. This is not a big deal -- you didn't do anything wrong -- but if you want to enter evidence or suggestions that the ArbCom is sure to look at, you might consider it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Kennedy

I've added a section dealing with his virulent (even for the day) anti-Semitism. If you have any additional info, please feel free to add. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Some folks are trying to chip away at it, too... Why people rush to defend this monster is beyond my ken. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done about all I can on this. Rjensen continues to whitewash. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Teleportation AfD

Hrenovo, Pecher. Stydno tak ispol'zovat AfD. Obviously, the topic exists - so slap {{fact}} wherever you think you see OR. I speedy-kept it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Szvest 20:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Last warning

Do not remove warnings from your talk page. This is your last warning. -- Szvest 20:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove the warnings if you agree w/ what i discussed in the article talk page Pecher. Cheers -- Szvest 20:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty disappointing to see that an admin like Szvest doesn't seems to understand some of Wikipedias most basic policies, and confuse content and NPOV disputes with vandalism. -- Karl Meier 18:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Hi Pecher,

I reverted a couple of your changes at this article. Some of your deletions were fine, for example, I think you were correct to remove the statement that WINEP supports Likud more than Labor, since I don't think its true and it definitely needs to be sourced. However, I think that listing the members of the advisory board is relevant, WINEP lists them on its website and it does show that the organization draws support from a number of big names in both parties. Also, the statement that WINEP scholars have served in the Clinton and Bush administrations is correct. For example, Dennis Ross worked for both Bush Sr. and Clinton and a WINEP scholar whose name I forget recently moved over to the treasury department to head the unit that deals with terrorist financing (I forget his name).

GabrielF 18:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Advisory doards are usually full of high-profile people who do not spend much time and attention on these institutions. Thus, devoting an entire paragraph to advisory board members is unnecessary and disproportional; a list of the most notable scholars would be much better. I have no objections to mentioning the fellows who served at different administrations, but we must be specific because "some" and "many" is not acceptable. Pecher ^Talk 18:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I did create a list of notable scholars. Unfortunately, some of the most notable people associated with WINEP do not have wikipedia articles. Unfortunately this article appears to have been distored by some anti-neoconservative people in the past - I can certainly understand your reasons for caution. Right now, the sentence says that several WINEP people have served in government, I may add a couple of specific examples, but I don't think we need to quantify it exactly. As for advisory boards, in this case I think it is notable, very few institutions have this kind of high-level bipartisan list, and since WINEP brags about it, it can't really be called wellpoisoning to include it. I agree that their day-to-day involvement is probably minimal, but they are still important to the institution. If we can't agree on this one I'd suggest taking it to the talk page to gather other opinions. GabrielF 19:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - I will watch this page temporarily in order to find your response. By the way, I noticed from your user page that you live in Ukraine. Have you ever heard of a town called Koretz (also transliterated as Korits, Korec, even Korzec) in Volhynia? GabrielF 19:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I've never heard of that town before, but I have started a stub, see Korets. Pecher ^Talk 20:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Safiyya bint Huyayy

Hi, there is no source about the particular torture part in the article. Have you checked in a book yourself? Unixer 16:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Kol Nidre

The similiarity between Kol Nidre and Taqiyya is not in what they are, rather, its in the spread of false information in respect of what they actually mean. Both Taqiyya and Kol Nidre have been used by partisans to say that Muslims and Jews respectively have a religious mandate to lie, or be false, to others. Unless you are acyually disputing that. --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Taqiyya allows one the right when faced with duress to say you are not a shia. Thats it, end of story. Yet people, such as Briangotts it would seem, have misinterpreted it, claiming it allows a Muslim a religious mandate to lie at will for whatever reasons, the samecharge levied against Jews in respect of Kol Nidre. Exactly how too does this compare ewith bread? I didn't make the Comparrison, Israel Shahak did.--Irishpunktom\^talk 20:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no meaningful connection. One is a prayer forgiving oaths made to God, the other is a doctrine permitting false conduct and statements (the extent and circumstances under which it is acceptable being widely debated) To compare the two is utterly absurd. Why not have a "See also" link in the Hungary article to Japan? Both are countries, so the connection is far more solid than what you propose.Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The connection is in the misinterpritation. One was judged by partisan non-jews as being a religious license for Jews to lie, the other was judged by partisan Non-Muslims as a religous license for Muslims to lie. Both misinterpritations about the respective subjects allowed the same false ideas to be spread. --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll self revert part of my edits in minute--Aminz 21:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Because there's more to life than arguing

And sometimes it's nice to wind down and enjoy the summer. Itsmejudith 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Invite

I invite you to argue for your accusation of me that my suggestion was "actually just another attempt to sneak Goy and Gentile into the "See also" section".

Please explain.

1. what was my previous attempts I have had no connection with any attempts in sneaking Goy and Gentile into the "See also" section.

2. Here are "all" my relevant comments on the talk page:

1. I don't personally joined the discussion on Gentile since I didn't know exactly how it is. But I wonder why there is this much sensitivity to having this word in the "See also" section? There is a section above in which some editors have made some connections between Dhimmi and Gentile.--Aminz 22:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Leifern, why do you think "this link - deliberately or not - implies that there is equivalence between the Moslem concept of "dhimmi"? ; we have links to "Kafir (Pagan)", "heathen", etc as well. Feel free to add more. It is in the "See Also" section after all. --Aminz 23:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Leifern, I was indifferent to having Gentile in the See Also section from the very beginning. Still I don't understand how it is offensive (?) to you; but as you let us know that it is so, I don't think anybody here wants to make you unhappy. --Aminz 00:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

3. I only added those links to the Dhimmi article once and that was only after when MikeXX (a new editor) reverted Hypnosadist's edit without joining the discussion.

I think of your accusation as "false". I invite you to argue for your accusation. --Aminz 22:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I believe my suggestion was inspired by Hypnosadist's suggestion and I am just trying to get a compromise that we can all agree on. --Aminz 22:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You have misrepresented my comments. I didn't say "another attempt of yours"; I said simply "another attempt", which absolutely correct. Pecher ^Talk 18:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I misunderstood that bit (my english is bad). I'll strike that part out. Please argue for the "absolutely correct" part of your comment. --Aminz 04:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Other people had tried yo push the same POV into the article before you did, hadn't they? Pecher ^Talk 18:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaybar_Khaybar

Indian caste system

If you care to check the talk page, the reasons are there. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

He reverted it five times and didn't get blocked. He refuses to contribute to the page. Infact the admin User talk:Blnguyen says the material was well-sourced, so if you want to re-revert it, the contributing editors (myself, D-boy, Netaji, and Krsont) would have no qualms.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I was replying to tigeroo ;)

I knew you were requesting full. Syrthiss 15:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[10] made on August 9 2006 (UTC) to Aisha

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 16:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|I didn't make more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. In addition, 3RR blocks are preventative, not punitive, and because the page was protected at the time of the block, it was not justified even if I had breached the 3RR}}

I'm going to unblock you, because the page is, as you say, protected. As for in 24h... well, you're close enough. But I should have noticed that and decided so conciously William M. Connolley 21:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Aisha

Dude, why-o-why did you request protection of that page? You should have KNOWN that it would be locked into an unfavorable stance.--Mike18xx 02:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab

I noticed you have also had trouble with User:BhaiSaab in the past, you should voice your concerns [11].Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR Warning

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles). Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 20:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you complaining about, you crybaby

You're a Jew, for Yaweh's sake. The administrators here wouldn't dream of holding you accountable for anything you do. They're too afraid of seeming 'anti-semitic'. Go on and keep editing. The Muslims are yours for the slaughter. They're only good at beheading captives and raping women anyway. They can't compete against your use of books and words. This is all a game; enjoy it. See how out of 1 billion of the fuckers one can't find a single book worthy of being labeled 'academically credible'? They're useless. His Excellency... 00:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)