User talk:Irishpunktom

Something to talk about? Click here to leave a new message!

Old Stuff

Copyright

I've removed two copyrighted images from your userpage. Copyrighted images are used in articles under a 'fair-use' claim, unfortunately, under wp policy, fairuse claims cannot be extended to userspace. See WP:FUC for details. --Doc ^ask? 10:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Colonel Francis Charteris

Well done! -- ALoan (Talk) 17:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem - interesting chap! Given the other Francis Charterises (the Earls of Wemyss) I have put him back as the Colonel... - ALoan (Talk) 19:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

P.G. Tatchell

I see you have added the {{POV}} tag again. Last time you added this, you did not explain why. I expect to see a rationale for adding the tag on the article talk page without delay, say by mid-day today, or I will remove the tag. David | Talk 10:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Your note

It might be better for someone else to take a look at it now that I've asked David to remove the protection. I'll wait for a bit to see what the response is. It probably should be protected as I see what looks like 3RR violations, and it would be better to protect than to start blocking, but the question now is whose version to protect on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

New Islamophobia Images

Irishpunktom, what are the origins and who is the copyright holder who has irrevocably released all rights to the two new images you've added to the Islamophobia article? Netscott 15:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I see well if you're not inclined to provide such information then I'll be sure to tag them for deletion due to rights concerns, etc. Netscott 15:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Much like how you expressed good faith concerns over the MANIFESTO article before, I too have my own concerning these images. Are you surprised? Netscott 15:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I'll be sure to take the necessary steps to ensure that these new images do not remain on Wikipedia under their current licensing tags. Netscott 15:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Dislike is a serious mischaracterization of my feelings on this matter. Regardless, it appears that a fellow editor concurs with my tagging. Netscott 15:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Islamophobiaevil.jpeg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Islamophobiaevil.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please follow the instructions listed on Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission#When permission is confirmed. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamikaze

Someone beat me by a few seconds - I was going to object to prod as well. Here's what my edit summary would have been: "object to prod. term is, article is not. Should have read talk page before prodding." Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I am in no way offended, though I tend to err on the side of over-notification. No worries. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK!

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Colonel Francis Charteris, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Image:Charteris.jpeg

I noticed that this image, which is on the Main Page (congrats) has a copyright symbol showing, but there is no explanation about this. Do you know where the "© NPGD1263.jpg" on the image comes from or its significance? You migh want to follow-up on this. Sorry, I do not have a W account; I am just trying to help. -- 71.6.14.2 06:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes - I noticed that too. Presumably it is an image from the National Portrait Gallery. Quite how they maintain copyright on a scan of an 18th century drawing I don't know. But I see someone has cropped the image to remove the tag, following some discussion in Image talk:Charteris.jpeg. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:RIsalmophobia.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:RIsalmophobia.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

7/7 Truth Movement

Interested? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_of_the_7/7_Truth_Movement - If so please ask those on here whom else you think would be interested. Thank you and keep up the great work.

Mail

Bro, you wanted to mail me something before, but i couldnt fix my mail. Im curious about what you wanted to say... --Striver 11:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Highway's RfA

File:Pikachu plastic toy.JPG

Me relaxing...

Request for Adminship

---

Thank you for supporting/objecting/tropicanising me in my request for Adminship. Although I wasn't promoted to admin status, with a final vote count of 14/27/12, I am very happy with the response I received from my fellow Wikipedians. I was pleasantly suprised at the support, and was touched by it. I will also work harder on preventing disputes and boosting my edit count (which is on the up), so thank you to all your objectors. Hopefully I will re-apply soon and try again for the mop. Thanks again, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers}

Template:Islam

Hi there, The Islam template is used in all Islam related articles and it carries an image of the mosque, if you take a close look at the other religion templates they all carry an icon that actually symbolizes the particular religion. The question is what symbolizes Islam? As a muslim you would agree that we cannot Idolize any symbol as sacred as it would be Shirk. So the next question is what kind of icon would correctly represent Islam and Muslims? It is undoubtedly the Shahada, because without it we wouldn't be muslims. So I have suggested to change the template image from a masjid to a Masjid with the Shahada in it. In order to have the image in the template I need build some consense, could you kindly visit the talk page (Template_talk:Islam) and make your suggestion, lets have the template change so it will correctly represent Islam. (You do not have to support it if you dont like it). thanks in advance.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 11:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments brother, I really appreciate them.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 14:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

New Islamophobia section

Irishpunktom, would you respond to this section of talk on Islamophobia? Thanks. Netscott 10:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Greeting Irishpunktom, in your editing of this article (and on Wikipedia in general) please be aware of the following Wikipedia guidelines: Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Thanks. Netscott 08:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem in your editing on this article is that it frequently falls afoul of the above guidelines. The Avoid neologisms guidelines are in place toward NPOV ends. Netscott 08:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but my good faith reasoning for the AfD was due to the simple fact that the Wikipedia is becoming the defacto primary source for the defining the term which is very counter to WP:NOR. This truth is further evidenced by this link. The way that the article stands now after your latest edit on it doesn't maintain Wikipedia's neutrality from it because of the article's actual use of the term which Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms is particularly clear about not doing. Netscott 08:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you're edit warring with Karl Meier now. You both should stop immediately while bearing in mind User:Tony Sidaway's warning to both of you. Netscott 08:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What has inclined you to inform me that WP:NEO is not policy (as though I didn't know it)? Netscott 09:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not enforcing it but it is perfectly logical for editors like myself (particularly when dealing with a neologism like "islamophobia") to be citing it in my efforts to maintain neutrality on its use and the article about it. Netscott 09:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

How would you feel about asking User:Tony Sidaway to help us come to some sort of agreement on this issue? I'm becoming really inclined to ask for his assistance. Netscott 09:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Mostly because User:Tony Sidaway is already somewhat informed on these issues and has shown no bias in his warnings to you and Karl. Netscott 09:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've put in for page protection while we engage the dispute resolution process. Netscott 09:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you think? Something like Islamophobia/Dispute resolution version? Netscott 09:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's funny that both you and User:Karl Meier don't want User:Tony Sidaway involved. That almost makes me think that he'd be the perfect person. I actually have had no direct involvement with Tony Sidaway myself. Netscott 09:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You know the the insinuating you're doing that I might be racist/islamophobic really reaks of mean-spiritedness. You must absolutely be aware of the numerous positive beneficial (towards NPOV ends) edits that I've made in terms of Islam related subjects. Don't you ask yourself why a person might do that? Netscott 09:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you're meaning a page for the acutal resolution process. Yes, that sounds good... I'm still wondering about my questions just above here. Netscott 09:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would I revert User:Karl Meier's removal of this information myself if my motives weren't based upon good faith? Netscott 10:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And don't forget about the whole User:Germen affair that I cracked... even User:Anonymous editor will back me up on that. Netscott 10:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your calling User:Karl Meier racist based upon the sole evidence of one link is not fair and additionally is completely out of accord with WP:NPA. I 100% agree with you about that particular link but do you honestly think it is fair to automatically refer to someone by the very derogatory and incriminatory term "racist" based solely upon that?... Regardless even if you were right in your accusations (which again I think is highly, highly doubtful) Wikipedia specifically prohibits editors from using such terminology when discussing other editors. Netscott 10:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edit here I believe was the first mention of racism, no? Netscott 10:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

No, I have not yet filed... I am about to though... what with the 3RR report, your talk page and Karl's talk page.. I've been just a tad busy. Getting to it now. Netscott 10:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'm reading up on the processes... I should have a request filed shortly. Netscott 11:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That was my plan as well.. but we're not the only ones editing here... hehe. Netscott 11:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we need to agree on what the dispute actually consists of. My contention is that actual utilization of the term islamophobia on Wikipedia needs to be avoided including on the very article about it. Please explain your view here. Netscott 11:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Well, I disagree. I believe while in general that contention is a good one when dealing with neologisms, as Islamophobia has entered the mainstream, to such a degree that various governments have set up methods of combatting it, it shuld be utilised. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok good I just wanted to be clear on that... this in indeed a very big difference on both our parts and without dispute resolution I'm not quite sure how we could come to a compromise about it as to me this is fundamental difference of view. Netscott 11:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Of the four options presented here is there one that seems to make more sense to you than the others? I'm thinking mediation. Netscott 13:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN

Yes, the yellow card has been thrown and the ref is reviewing the footage. Any way that you can be pushed into dispute resolution any faster? In the interim, comments like this should be avoided. I know that you're firm in your belief, but it is possible to be right and be blocked at the same time. - brenneman^{L} 12:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Gah, that wasn't strong enough. "Quit it or else." There, that's better. I recomend that you avoid all mention of he-who-shall-not-be named outside of dispute resolution and Netscott's talk, and that you be circumspect there. An attack is in the eye of the beholder, and we must err on the side of caution. There is nothing to be gained in the short term from banging on about this, so, um, "Quit it or else." - brenneman^{L} 13:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation

Tom, you've been blocked for a WP:3RR violation on the Islamophobia article: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. There were a number of other complex reverts I didn't bother documenting. When you return, please attempt to work with other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sukh's RFA - Thanks!

Thank you for your vote on my RfA. Unfortunately there was no consensus reached at 43 support, 18 oppose and 8 neutral. I've just found out that there is a feature in "my preferences" that forces me to use edit summaries. I've now got it enabled :) Thanks again. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Religion of Peace

You might be interested in the Article for deletion on the article Religion of Peace. Raphael1 20:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Freagra

Go raibh maith agat! An bhfiul 'ám agat, mar, ba mhaith liom (agus Netscott) daoine "neodracht" cúntóir a féach ar an airteagal seo. (you can probably see why i don't edit ga.wikipedia !) --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ní bheinn in ann é sin a dhéanamh daoibh, toisc go bhfuilim i measc scrúdaithe choláiste anois, agus go n-imeoidh mé go dtí'n Ollóin an Déardaoin seo chugainn. B'fhéidir go mbeidh WP:3O nó WP:RFC in ann cabhrú libh. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation on Islamophobia

Irishpunktom, please review this request for mediation and agree to it. Thanks. Netscott 17:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia and neutrality

Irishpunktom, going over some articles that I observe, I noticed an attempted move made on your part for the article Islamic extremist terrorism. You may be surprised to know but counter to my previous way of thinking, I'm now actually inclined to agree with you on your move. I would sooner vote for Islamic extremist militancy though. To me this makes sense in the same way that the title September 11, 2001 attacks makes sense. What is funny is how your inclination towards neutral point of view in that regard is virtually identical to my inclination towards neutral point of view in regards to the utilization of the word "islamophobia". I am confident that there are many others who share these views and so what I'm wondering is how we might be able to utilize these similiarities to truly benefit the Wikipedia project in terms of neutrality? I am inclined to think that if we support eachother's views in this regard the project will improve. Netscott 06:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Muslim flat-earth theories

Tom, I wish you wouldn't keep adding that factoid re "Muslim scientists calculated the earth's diameter as ...." The only point seems to be bragging. I don't see that any individual is made bigger or better by making claims of past achievement for a group to which he or she belongs. It's like graffiti artists tagging, except that in this case it's the past, not walls and subway cars. Is anyone any bigger or better if his "tag" appears all over the place? Is anyone any better if he identifies with a sports team and his team wins? Is anyone any more important if members of his religion (a religion with millions of members) did thus and such?

Those weren't "Muslim" scientists, they were scholars living in Baghdad under the Abbasid caliphs, more than a thousand years ago. Either they belong to nobody, or everybody. Yes, let's all take pride in the great things HUMAN BEINGS have done, and learn caution and self-examination by contemplating the horrible things humans have done too. Zora 10:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Stalking

Who's the stalker now? I will either strike the comments out or remove them... which do you think makes more sense? Netscott 15:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious to know, do you really want to be editing in support of an editor (Resid Gulerdem) who has independently been repetitively blocked on the Wikipedia of his own native tongue? Myself, I try to choose my "battles" wisely. Netscott 15:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well by all means edit in support of him and watch your own reputation be tarnished and watch his negativity and disruptiveness further influence Wikipedia. Don't forget that the initiator of this latest series of events concerning Resid's disruptiveness was initiated by a fellow of his, the Turkish User:Azate. And as far as good faith is concerned you are rather asisine in making such comments when you initiated such demonstrations. Netscott 15:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm determining from your commentary that in fact the comments should just be in effect "reverted" out (through deletion) rather than struck out. I'd be fine with doing that. Netscott 15:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You should know as well that much like your utilization of the word "racist" when referring to User:Karl Meier referring to me as a stalker or wikistalker qualifies as a personal attack. Your continued mischaracterization of myself is inclining me to follow User:Karl Meier's example and post a WP:PAIN notice which actually might have an effect in terms of curbing your repeated demonstrations of bad faith. Netscott 15:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I should do the same and start with Talk:Fethullah Gülen. What you are now fully demonstrating in your talk page commentary is that admin User:Aaron Brenneman's WP:PAIN warning above fell on "deaf" eyes. Netscott 16:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Labeling my actions as intimidation is another perfect example of your bad faith Irishpunktom. Being that you are the only individual who has has ever accused me of bad faith on Wikipedia and being that the same cannot be said for yourself I'm inclined to doubt your estimation of my character while I don't doubt my own regarding yourself. Netscott 16:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys! This seems to be lasting forever. Please make a real effort to sort it out because it is bothering. I'd be ready to help you in case you need it. Cheers -- Szvest 16:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Tom! Any comment from your side about mediating? Please let me know mate. Cheers -- Szvest 19:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Any news man? -- Szvest 18:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea if there is any policy or guideline that mandates stiking out of suckpuppet contributions on talk pages, and I'm too lazy to find out. I think the easiest course of action would be to simply archive the talk page, with or without strikes. Azate 17:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You're edit warring, again

Irishpunktom, from looking at the history of Islam in Denmark it is clearer and clearer that you really have no qualms about edit warring. Why do you think you've been warned about this (particularly in regards to who you're edit warring with)? Hello! Dispute resolution, anyone? Netscott 18:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom , you tell me if you need a friendly hand. --Striver 19:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Islamic extremist terrorism to Islamist terrorism

You might want to comment on an idea of Szvest's here. Netscott 16:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom, i suggest that you discuss the points you are disagreeing with at the article's talk page. That's the proper manner. I don't want to see anyone of you blocked recklessly because we can't discuss things. Please make use of the talk page.

Re your answer of today about my mediation. Could you please tell me about your concerns. I need a honest opinion about the conflict between you and Scott. Cheers -- Szvest 17:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Thanks Tom for the details you provided. I'll have a look at them this afternoon and see what i'd suggest to sort this out between yourselves. Cheers -- Szvest 10:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

greetings

Greetings. quick non-encyclopedic question. Have you read On Late Style, and if so, what are your thoughts?--Irishpunktom\^talk 11:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I plan to buy and read this book next weekend. Thanks.

Siddiqui 05:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

sure...

I only read the links you posted which were the BBC one which said his injuries were not life threatening, and ABC which just said a guy was shot. Just checking [8] agrees with BBC. Feel free to update if you see something else though :) Kurando | ^_^ 15:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you an anti-Semite?

Well, according to SirIsaacBrock you belong to "a small group of anti-Semites" on Wikipedia because you have received a certain barnstar. He has repeated the statement several times, for instance at Category talk:Anti-Semitic people#Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Perhaps you would be interested to have a word in it. // Liftarn

then i guess i must be a anti semite as well... i did'nt know i was one, but considering i have that barnstar, the evidence is conclusive :( --Striver 19:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Be advised that this user has been blocked indefinitely.Timothy Usher 20:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hujum

I have a copy of Northrop's book, although I haven't read it yet as I'm more interested in the Tsarist period. I'll have a look at it though and see if I can add anything to the page. I haven't read On Late Style - I have a lot a sympathy for Said's politics, but I consider his ideas about Orientalism fairly absurd (as you might guess from my recent additions to his page on the critical response to the book). Orientalism is a set text for a course I sometimes teach in Imperial History but otherwise I don't go out of my way to read his work because I just don't think it's very relevant for historians (not if you actually believe in History as a discipline, anyway). On Late Style got some pretty shocking reviews. Sikandarji 06:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry not to have done any work on Hujum yet, I've been very busy. I notice that there's another book forthcoming which might be useful to us: Marianne Kamp: The New Woman in Uzbekistan: Islam, Modernity, and Unveiling Under Communism (Jackson School Publications in International Studies) Sikandarji 12:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Karl Meier

Please don't put the reference to Karl Meier on your user page again. It's a personal attack. --Tony Sidaway 19:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#User:Raphael1/Wikiethics

Since you previously showed interest in the former proposed policy Wikiethics, I'd like to inform you about this deletion review. Raphael1 15:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

Gotta wait an hour or so? Just wait twenty-four; I've blocked you for edit warring. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? - Self reverts are not supposed to count--Irishpunktom\^talk 17:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Because you seem to think you're entitled to three reverts every twenty-four hours without penelty. You're not; you were trying to game the system to get away with edit warring. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I to gather then, that you will take an equally harsh line with david for engaging in the exact same process? --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair point; I'll protect the page and unblock you. But I meant what I said about trying to game the system. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Its not the first time this has happened between the pair of us on this page - we need a neutral mediator.. you wanna be up for the task? --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm a good choice for this one. Maybe the mediation cabal? Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Err.. it say my IP is still blocked. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; I'll need your IP. Email me if you don't want to put it up publically. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Its ok - I've edited under it before: 86.14.171.89--Irishpunktom\^talk 18:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Working? Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion on WP:ANI. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[9]? You have got to be kidding me. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Apostasy in Islam

There hasn't been a comment on Talk:Apostasy in Islam since 20 May, and you haven't posted there or edited the article since 3 May. Why did you add those tags to the article? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Timurids

I understand that, but Timurids were culturally and linguistically Persianized to a great extent, please refer to the sources Tajik has provided. --ManiF 17:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Babur

I have changed the quote. I took out the H. Götz quote and replaced it with F. Lehmann's quote from the Encyclopaedia Iranica. Tajik 17:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know. But information about the Berlas is very rare in the internet. Babur belonged to the Berlas tribe, and since Timur and his tribe had settled in Persian Turkistan, Mongol-, Turkic-, and Iranian cultures had melted through the dynasty. And since "Persian culture" has always been the most influental culture within Islamic society, it's not wrong to say that the Berlas had embraced Turkic (meaning Turkic language) and Persian (meaning Persian life-style, art, literature, and so on) culture. Tajik 17:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? lol BTW: I have - once again - removed that totally wrong paragraph that is being pushed in by User:Johnstevens5 (who has been reported to admins by quite a few Wikipedians because pan-Turkic and racist propaganda). Tajik 17:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Raphael1

Since you know Netscott as well, you might be interested in my arbitration case. Please note, that the Mediation of Islamophobia, which has not even started, is listed in "other steps in dispute resolution have been tried". Raphael1 16:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Block

I'm blocking you for one week for persistent disruptive edit warring, most recently on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Meh - harsh but fair. --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration application

See here. --Tony Sidaway 22:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm unblocking you so you can respond. Please don't edit anything unrelated to your Arbcom case. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, you can freely communicate with other editors who you may want to make comments on the arbitration. It's probably not in your interests to edit articles, but you can edit talk pages. --Tony Sidaway 22:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note the comment I've left on your arbitration case. I'd be glad, if you'd comment my arbitration case as well, especially regarding the Mediation Request Netscott filed regarding the Islamophobia article, which has been called a "failed attempt at dispute resolution" by a clerk and is supposed to prove my "tendentious editing on Islamophobia". Raphael1 11:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I wasn't 100% sure if I was going to get involved with this case but Raphael1's "helpful" comments now incline me to do so. Netscott 11:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment. Raphael1 11:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not cool

A Category needs to be descriptive so that people want to explore it who come to read this online tome. Indian monarchs is far more interesting then an obscure link between sur dynasty and Indian monarchs. Tatra 07:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 14:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Islam in the Soviet Union

How about breaking it down into first Era, and then macro-region? viz. Russia proper (e.g. Tartarstan), Central Asia (Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc.) and the Caucasus (Azerbaijan, Chechnya etc.). I don't agree with treating all the ethnic groups as homogenous, especially as Soviet policy was not uniform with respect to Muslims. - FrancisTyers · 14:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I do however think your point about "accurate chronological order" is imperative :) — and if at a point there is no point in breaking it up, it won't be necessary. - FrancisTyers · 14:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 11:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild#Islamonline_IS_a_Reliable_Source

--Aminz 15:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing unrelated to arbitration

You seem to be editing for purposes unrelated to your arbirtation case. I'm blocking you for a week. Please let me or another admin know if you need to edit on WP:RFAR. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

soo.. when I was told I "can edit talk pages".. what was i to take from that?--Irishpunktom\^talk 21:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there was a mixup. I'll have a chat with Tom, though I have to grant him the last word. Apologies, it was my error if my words misled you. --Tony Sidaway 22:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked you, per Tony's request. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to Tony's comment. I will not block you again unless you do something new that warrants a block. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Abrahamic cite

Thanks for adding this to Islam, IPT. This is just not a value judgement as some seem to think, but the mere application of conventional terminology.Timothy Usher 03:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 10:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Mail

check your mail box --Striver 19:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Bro, did you get my mail? Ill send it again. --Striver 15:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Administrator

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Salman01

Final (1/11/5) Ended 05:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Salman01 (talk · contribs) – Hello everyone, How are you? My name is Salman and I have been editing articles in wikipedia for a while. I have been through all different kinds of things at wikipedia; see my talk page for more details. Others wikipedians and I also believe that I have improved a lot since the first time I started editing at wikipedia. I would like an opportunity to become an administrator at wikipedia because even though I have posted “I am willing to help whoever is looking for help in their work”, I haven’t been offered for help. So I would like to become an administrator so I can help others wikipedians. Thank you SalmanSallu 21:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support

1. Moral Support Might I suggest withdrawing from this RfA, for if the oppose votes pile up, I'd hate to have you become jaded with the project and leave, as you seem to be a valuable contributor. Perhaps take a look at some recent RfA candidates who have succeeded in becoming admins to get a feel of what the community is looking for in a potential administrator. If you wait a while and get a better handle on what an admin is all about, I'm sure you'll see most of the oppose votes turn into supporting votes at a later date. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 02:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Cuñado - Talk 02:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Ian Cairns 00:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC) (I took time to read Salman01's talk page and viewed the issues with his edits. I am also struggling with the relevance of Salman01's answer to Q2 below.)
3. Oppose. Not sure if this RfA is open for voting yet according to policy, which is one of the reasons for this vote. -lethe ^{talk +} 00:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Salman01_RfA -- Avi 01:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose none of the tasks listed are admin tasks, removing opinions is not the reason to get admin Alphachimp ^talk 01:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose per above. --WinHunter ^(talk) 01:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose malformed unlisted RfA (see WP:RfA talk). Answer to question one shows that candidate doesn't seem to understand what admin tools are for - you can ensure "Islamic pages contain only Islamic information in a neutral way" without the tools and quite frankly, if that is your only need for them, then you don't need them. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 01:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose per RfA talk. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
9. digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} 02:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC) — per above
10. Oppose. Suggest withdrawal. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-05 02:27Z
11. Oppose per block log. You got blocked on July 1 and you nominated yourself for adminship on July 2? I haven't checked the allegations to see if they're true, but a potential admin should have a clean record. --Elkman 04:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. --Street Scholar 11:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Avoid pile on. Strongly suggest withdrawal. Roy A.A. 02:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Merovingian {T C @} 03:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Voting neutral only to not pile on to the oppose votes. A withdraw would be a wise choice. --WillMak050389 03:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral to avoid pile on and possible :('edness on behalf of Salman. I strongly suggest withdrawal mate. ShaunES 05:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC).

Comments

• Comment This user has less than 1000 edits, and most are to the same articles. Alphachimp ^talk 01:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I highly contributed to the Islamic pages at wikipedia, since they are very likely read these days by everyone. I wanted to make sure that the Islamic pages contain only Islamic information in a neutral way. I am going to continue editing at wikipedia for as long as possible.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: Well, I am really pleased with all most each and every article that had been written in detail by wikipedians. Whenever I need help with school work I always come to wikipedia for guidance and information about my project. I am very pleased with most of the articles written fully in wikipedia. The only thing I don’t like about wikipedia is that there are so many wikipedians around and there are still some articles that are incomplete so I am willing to contribute to the articles that are incomplete.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Yes I have been, not a lot of times though. Recently I have been accused by our friend Grenavitar for violating the copyright rules of wikipedia and he blocked me from editing articles on wikipedia. But now I am back and I am going to try my best to solve the issue in a nice and professional way. I am innocent as far as this accusation is concerned.

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

Tag commentary

Nicely done, hope this is the start of a general Irishpunktom trend. :-) Netscott 14:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

AOA Tom

Back on duty -- hope all is well with you and yours. Please let me know if there are articles you think I should be looking at. BYT 10:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk page

You didn' t saw the article's talk page. The other time first see it then change.--TheFEARgod 10:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

2006 Isreal-Lebanon Conflict

Sorry for reverting your changes to this article - you put a change in whilst I was reverting vandalism. CS Miller 22:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I appreciate your reponse, though I do not quite understand it due to lacking knowledge in the English-Irish conflicts, past and present. In any case I am sure you would agree that the unsigned comment I replied to was not appropriate.

Help

Would you please help in writing this article ? Thanks.--Welondekaw11:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia in America

Hey, I saw your lists of attacks on Muslum mosques over in Europe. I am an American and I have heard of attacks on mosques over here too. There is also (in my opinion) more intolerance here in america. I also heard of an bombing of a donut shop allegedly owned by Muslims in Utah, I think.--Lionheart Omega 15:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Mohammed Agbareia

I've nominated the article Mohammed Agbareia for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Mohammed Agbareia satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Agbareia. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Mohammed Agbareia during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion.

Kol Nidre

Your connection is very strained. There is no evidence that the meaning of taqiyya was somehow distorted by someone. Then, why didn't you insert a link to matzo? Anti-Semites also insinuated lots of nasty things about this food. Yor logic just doesn't hold water and looks... well, back-dated. Pecher ^Talk 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have posted my explanation on Pecher's page where I first noticed the discussion. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Islamic =>Muslim

I notice that as i type you are waging a campaign to change all use of "Islamic" to "Muslim"[10]. Alphabetically it would seem (you have changed 40 articles and are only up to "C")!!!! You seem to maintain that a person can be Islamic - yet, convetional usage uses the word "Muslim" to describe someone of the faith. I did not know there was this distinction between the words Islamic and Muslim for the pious and the not so pious (as there is not one for "Christian"). It also wikipedia convetion to discuss such large scale edits. As it is to discuss page moves. [11]. Please provide justification for your unusual intepretations of English and please discuss all major moves and wide-ranging edits.--Merbabu 12:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agreed with the change on my article on Management of Savagery. The motivation seems to me an attempt to differentiate those philosophies and events that are implicit to the the faith itself or its practice, and those which are carried out by individuals who happen to be or identify as Muslims. With all the people around who have agendas about demonizing the Islamic faith and its adherents, this seems to be reasonable. I agree that it should be discussed, though. Richardjames444 11:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You said on my user talk:Richardjames444:

Regarding the discussion, wherabouts should I go to? --Irishpunktom\talk 13:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really clear on what you meant, I assume that it was in relation to this discussion on renaming, which I am in agreement with but not clear on your motivations for. Richardjames444 13:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Liability issues

I noticed you wrote the article Zachariah Blanton ... since he hasn't been convicted of anything yet, it is utterly inappropriate (and possibly libelous) to say with certainty that he killed someone. It is for this reason that newspapers and other media always make sure to include words indicating doubt such as "allegedly", and we must follow suit. Also, just because he confessed doesn't mean he necessarily did it either; there's lots of cases in which suspects have made false confessions for whatever reasons. --Cyde↔Weys 18:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Musalymah

You changed the Musalymah page so that it now says he was one of many other people refered to as "false prophets" during the time of Muhemmed. Do you have a source for this, I've only heard of the Two Great Liers who were contemporaries of Muhemmed, not several men. --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 03:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Piye

On Piye, there is no specific study because he is not well known in the Egyptian records after his Year 20 conquest of Egypt. But on the Nubian 25th Dynasty, you may consider looking at Kenneth Kitchen's book on "The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt" and possibly Robert Morkot's book on 'The Black Pharaohs.' Morkot's book is not bad but his chronology for the Nubian Dynasty is suspect and he, I believe, supports the idea of coregencies in the Nubian kingdom whereas no evidence supports the view that the Nubian kings ever used the coregency system. They merely ruled Egypt with one king on the throne. Regards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoboudv (talk • contribs)

Moving pages

Hey, you moved the current terror plot page without discussion and spelt Transatlantic incorrect. Could you please discuss these changes first on the Talk page before carrying out wholesale changes incorrectly. Cheers. Budgiekiller 10:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving and then re-moving pages continually without any discussion is quite rude. Please refrain in future. Tell me to get back to work! 10:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages

Please do not edit another person's addition to a talk page, even if it is a spelling error. You should only remove it if you are 100% sure it is vandalism. --Zimbabweed 10:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Striver's Comment

Striver's comment on Talk:2006 transatlantic aircraft plot is completely irrelevant and potentially harmful. It has been removed several different times by several different people, and for good reason. As the {{talkheader}} at the top says, "Please do not use it as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." That's exactly what Striver is doing. On a subject like this, Striver's insertion of his point-of-view that this is just some sort of ploy to entice Europe into attacking Iran and implying "Pearl Harbor 3" (whatever happened to "Pearl Harbor 2"? 9|11?) could potentially attract an unnecessary debate. Striver's "I told you so", once again, could be a magnet for heated debate. Talk pages are not for that and Wikipedia does not need it. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove points of view on talk pages. Talk pages are there to talk about points of views, not removing them or shuting them up. --Striver 16:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Care to comment?

There is a discussion on Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict talkpage about the inclusion of detail for Israel. I am of the view that Israel should be included but the detail is being continually removed by User:Tewfik.

Tewfik's argument is what he considers the illegality of Hezbollah under UN 1559. How this has a bearing on a balanced representation of aid to the combatants is never made clear. Tewfik has not removed recent requests of arms sales to Israel such as jet fuel and GBU-28's but removed the history of such arms shipments. I believe he is pushing the POV that aid to Israel is only in response to the current crisis or the illegality of Hezbollah under 1559. US aid to Israel is in fact a long standing agreement responsible for the size and makeup of the IDF. Without the aid they would not have a military capable of engaging in conflict. This is a question of balance in the article and if you can take a look and support my position (was working under 82.29.227.171) that would be great. RandomGalen 17:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict:Captured vs. Kidnapped

Hello.

Perhaps you were unaware, but there is a very lively discussion/informal poll regarding this issue on the talk page, here: Consensus vote: Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#Captured, Kidnapped, or Abducted. Unilateral changes should be avoided while this process is in force, but please make your opinions known and heard on the talk page, to help arrive at a consensus. Thank you. -- Avi 16:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Timur

Thanks for your efforts to comprise, however, it is not needed to mention Timur's language in the introduction. It is mentioned later in the text, and given the fact, that Timur's Mongol descent ment much more to him than his Turkic language or his Perso-Islamic culture, there is absolutely no need to mention it in the first sentence.

Btw: here is the article "Timur" (written by Beatrice F. Manz) from the famous Encyclopaedia of Islam: [12] It's clear from the beginning on, that Timur was a Mongol and regarded himself as such. Not Turkic, not Arab, and not Persian!

Here an extract from the first paragraph:

"... Timur rose to power in in the Ulus Chaghatay, a tribal tribal confederation forming the western section of the Mongol Chaghatay Khanate [q.v.] He was a member of the Barlas of the Kish region. This was an important Mongol tribe within the Ulus, tracing its leadership back to Chinggis Khan’s commander Karachar, who shared a common ancestor with Chinggis, and was later attached to his son Chaghatay. Timur descended from Karachar but was not of the chiefly lineage, and gained power through skilful politics and the help of a personal, non-tribal tribal following ..."

The Encyclopaedia of Islam does not even mention his mother-tongue. Obviously, the authors of the article (all of them experts) did not consider it any important.

Tājik 13:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Catald

You're right - thanks! Fastifex 09:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom

This case has closed. You have been placed on revert parole and probation, and banned from Peter Tatchell for one year. See the full details at the decision page. Dmcdevit·t 03:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The obvious purpose to genius

Hello grand master thinker man. The obvious reason to keep the names of those harassed around is they will be used by users to locate further information via searching in the future. As the case unravels, trials and releases may be done piecemeal, and the only way for users to find the relevant information will be by cutting and paste specific names in search engines, since obviously the owners of the media will not assist in their personal research and seeking of the truth, in the revelation that this was all just a mass manipulation to skew thoughts away from key failures in global and domestic administration. Please, keep in mind that this is an electronic medium and costs us relatively nothing to have a few extra bytes of information for all time to chronicle crimes of the highest order, those done by sick ones that have taken control of the real decisions; OK, I decided what pants I got to wear today, fair to say. This is one of our last mechanisms to corral them, via shame, into not acting like a bunch of savage blood and bone suckers, please don't take it litely. And please reverse your appeal for deletion and stop adding them in the future. You are only giving excuse to the provocateurs. Rock on. Oh wait, maybe that's how you make a living Holon67 14:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Barnstar Award

Please offer your opinion, vote, or whatever about your choice for the image to be used with the Islamic Barnstar Award at the Barnstar proposals page. Although there is consensus for the concept of an Islamic Barnstar Award, some editors would like to change the image for the award. I was just thinking you should be aware of this discussion because you have contributed to Islamic-related articles, received the Islamic Barnstar Award, or have contributed to the Islam-related Wikiprojects, etc.--JuanMuslim ^1m 16:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Germen's back?

81.58.29.91 reminds me a lot of his edits. (→Netscott) 14:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe so... but obviously he's got an extensive block log see: Germen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) so it's good to know if he's returning to his old ways or not. (→Netscott) 15:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This IP hails from Germen's country as well... pretty sure it's him. (→Netscott) 15:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You know if you want to thin out some of the less notable converts in the crime section of List of converts to Islam, I'd not counter your edits. A lot of them were added by User:Germen when he was on a bit of a negativity campaign re: Islam. (→Netscott) 15:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, I've noticed you seem to have an interest in Israel-Palestine articles, and I thought I'd let you know that some POV pushers are trying to delete Israel-South Africa relations, despite it being very well sourced and balanced. I'm just worried that they'll succeed if nobody else notices what's going on. Thanks, Deuterium 04:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Info on Islamophobic group

Hello,

What follows are the thoughts, expressed in their own words, and in the 'protest signs', of the obscure, very small, but very vocal 'activist group' known as "Protest Warrior".

"What's becoming clear is how the religion of Islam is addicted to war and mayhem. Not a radical minority, not a rogue sect, but its very essence is about submission and sacrifice and proving your worth by worshipping death in this life to gain a paradise of orgies and drunkenness. Their entire history is of warfare, and any accomplishments of their so-called Golden Age has been proven to be merely parasitic off the cultures they've conquered and reduced to dhimmi servitude. That every country under sharia is corrupt, belligerent, desolate and barbaric obviously gives them no pause, except to constantly drive them into further psychotic rage as they refuse to ever accept any responsibility for their conditions. They are akin to the powers in Orwell's 1984; there must always be an enemy. It's no surprise that women are treated like property in these countries as that's the only way Muslim men can feed their egos, to dominate others rather than ever actually produce something."

Kfir Alfia and Alan Lipton, founders of "Protest Warrior"

Their 'protest signs'...

Signs

I thought you might be interested in this group's sentiments. They are currently very actively editing their own article on Wiki and there is a lot of 'group think'. Perhaps you might want to become involved in the editing and discussion process on that page. If you do, please don't vandalize, and try to remain civil. Should you not want to involve youself, please forgive my intrusion.

Protest Warrior

Protest Warrior Discussion

NBGPWS 08:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

explain yourself

Why did you you use your rollback facility to revert a content dispute? --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Because as pointed out by user:okedem on user:Deuterium's talk page, that is out of scope of the article, and is being used to push an anti-Israel POV. That is not a content dispute, but closer to anti-NPOV vandalism and WP:OR on Deuterium's part. -- Avi 15:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Human Rights, the source that is cited speaks of the same. It is a content dispute, and you should not use your Roll-Back. Do not do that again. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The material quoted does not relate to human rights in Israel; it seems to be a private legal transaction between an employer and an employee. It does NOT belong in the article until it can be shown that such transactions are governmentally mandated to discriminate, or something to that effect. Passing off out-of-scope and immateriel data in order to push a POV is vandalism and not a content dispute. Thank you. -- Avi 16:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

New article on a complex subject

A new article on a complex subject is looking for more high quality contributors:

Israel lobby in the United States

--Ben Houston 19:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you in accordance with the ARBCOM ruling which states that you may only have one revert per article per week, which you appear to have contravened at Islam with your edits on August 31, at 16.59 and 17.26. Blnguyen | rant-line 22:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I also note the same at Human rights in Isreal on August 25 19.51 and August 30 9.28, which were marked as such and were indeed so.Blnguyen | rant-line 23:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Thank you for that feedback, IPT. It means a lot. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk)

VfD: Racist website

I thought you might be interested in voting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jihad_Watch

--Kitrus 05:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you, Irishpunktom, for voting on my RFA, which passed 95 to 1. Now that I have the mop, I hope I can live up to the standard, and be a good administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. —this is messedrocker (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom appeal

I have launched a second appeal against the article ban, and have also asked for your article ban to be removed if they are inclined to remove mine. Just wanted to alert you. David | Talk 20:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ikey Solomon

Hi, I think that article really is original research as someone has compiled it from primary sources. Arniep 23:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Srđa Trifković

I've left a polite message on the "Raphael Levy" (cough cough) user talk page asking for a response to my comments on the Srda talk page. If he doesn't make an effort at providing a reasonable explanation I'll just revert but hoping to avoid getting into a revert war. I just don't have time for that these days. --Lee Hunter 16:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Self revert?

Hey IPT, you might want to review your edits before someone with some extra buttons does and make sure you haven't crossed a line. It'd suck to see you get blocked again when you're just editing in good faith. (→Netscott) 12:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

One, two. These edits are good faith (and I happen to agree with them) but the second edit certainly falls outside of the parole, no? (→Netscott) 14:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Board of Deputies of British Jews

Hi, good work on referencing this article. I'm not very happy with the paragraph about the briefing paper which contains the quote about the non-aligned movement. It doesn't seem legitimate to say "the board believes" on the grounds of that reference.. I would only feel comfortable saying that if it was an explicit motion passed by the board. I don't think the paper is particularly notable and I am also concerned that the quote is taken out of context. Anyway could you please do a little more work on that paragraph so that I can be in a position of backing you up if someone tries to get rid of it entirely (as they surely will). Yours Zargulon 12:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear Irishpunktom, you are doing simply great job at Muhammad article. Even with your prole and everything. I really appreciate your work there. --- ابراهيم 10:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom: Article ban lifted from Peter Tatchell for Dbiv and replaced with probation

In Irishpunktom case a motion passed and is published at the above link.

The article ban (remedy 1) for Dbiv (talk · contribs) and Irishpunktom (talk · contribs) from Peter Tatchell is lifted, and replaced with Probation for Dbiv also. Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban Dbiv from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. He must be notified on his talk page of any bans, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. Violations of these bans or paroles imposed shall be enforced by appropriate blocks, up to a month in the event of repeat violations. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee FloNight 22:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Saint Columba image

Hi Irishpunktom. Please, could you upload the image of Saint Columba also to wikipedia commons. In this way I (and others) could use it in wikipedia for other languages. Thanks a lot, Tomás Santa Coloma, Tasc1 14:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC).

Term for evil CORRUPTION

Dear Irishpunktom, maybe you know, whats the Islamic term for the corruption of scriptures/monotheism in Judaism and Christianity?Opiner 07:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah thats it, thank you! Im gonna link to it where it says Muhammad said people corrupted their scriptures.Opiner 21:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Galloway

Please read the Mediation section in the discussion page before further reverts if you can; this is a long-running discussion. Hence my revert to your revert. Thanks. MarkThomas 13:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Pure POV

Your edits are absolutely saturated with POV. You hardly deserve to be left on Wikipedia - your activities are going to be monitored. MarkThomas 14:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Baroness Cox

Tom, of course I don't hate you, and I appreciate that you are trying to live within your edit restrictions. As for the edits themselves, most of them are quite problematic, given WP:BLP; I'll comment further on the relevant Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Adnan Hajj photographs controversy

Hi. You and I seem to have differing understandings of the photo caption quoted in Adnan Hajj photographs controversy:

"A Lebanese woman ... as she walks past a building flattened during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs 5 August, 2006"

I believe that "overnight" here is journalist shorthand indicating that an event occurred during the evening of the previous day or the early hours of the current day. What's your interpretation of that word? (You can reply here.) Cheers, CWC(talk) 17:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Salutations to the read should be made in the language of the Quran, and said not read

DocEss 18:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)I would be grateful if you'd explain this. I don't know what your'e talking about. Thanks tons.

I was removnig the PBUH which an anon user added. Muslims say "Peace be upon him" when the names of the Prophets are read or said, but it should not have to be written for them to realise they are to say it. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I agree. I'd rather write something like "PBUAOU", as in Peace Be Upon All of Us or Christ be with you. DocEss 18:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hafiz

Hi. I am in a dispute with a user in the Hafiz article, and i would like to bring this conflict into your attention in order to get some non-involved feed back. You can view the nature of the conflict here: [13], [14], [15] [16]. Thanks and peace. --Striver 20:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)