User talk:Irishpunktom

File:Dancingpenguin.gif

File:Lighteningstrikeanimation.gif

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

Old Stuff

Revert parole

Your revert parole limits you to one revert per article per week. I think you are over your limit on Muhammad. I see you were blocked for this on 17 October for 48 hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You may want to revert yourself as an act of good faith. Thanks. --BostonMA ^talk 01:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I will revert it again to your change. --- ابراهيم 10:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you, and I'm sorry that you had to deal with a block anyway. Please let me know if I was wrong in making my suggestion. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Article

Irishpunktom , have a look at this [1]. It is written by another scholar of Islam who respects(and even loves) Muhammad so much (like Watt) but explains why these Islamic scholars don't convert to Islam. --Aminz 10:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

you're welcome brother. --Aminz 11:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Email

Salam, please read your email. BhaiSaab ^talk 15:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[2] made on November 9 2006 to Muhammad

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. 

Please remember you're on parole.

William M. Connolley 19:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|I SRVed, which, as I understood it, does not count?}}

Ahhhh... *thats* what that meant. OK, next time I suggest spelling it out in full... unblocked William M. Connolley 20:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Theft

Give them back immediately! ;-D (I'll take it as a compliment). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying this, but that is one ugly penguin! ;-). --BostonMA ^talk 22:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

New article you may want to edit

Hello Irishpunktom, I've started a new article about Saudi Arabia's first feature film: Keif al-hal?. I invite you to contribute to it if such an article might interest you. Thanks. :-) (→Netscott) 02:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Again on Muhammad

After the nice admininstrator unblock from your revert parole now youre reverting AGAIN! Both me and Aminz! No discussion ever!Opiner 11:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not actual READ what you quote from Aisha? About salamander NOT GECKO!Opiner 11:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom youre reverting again

Youre blocked again and again for reverting on Muhammad because of the revert parole: [3], [4]. Already blocked for three this week when only supposed to one a week.

Now youre doing the revert again of me and User:Aminz never any discussing as usual.[5].Opiner 12:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, it is not very civil to be posting messages to Irishpunktom's talk page and not actually direct your message to him. Did you want reword this? (→Netscott) 12:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Youre right Netscott. I hope these changes are okay.Opiner 12:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You have still to show me the revert. --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Dont play dumb with me! Here your revert11:44, 10 November 2006 to this previous version08:20, 9 November 2006 before this edit 08:33, 9 November 2006 and this one 03:36, 10 November 2006. Other changes since then about the trees also youre reverting.Opiner 12:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? My edit removed some incorrect information and bears absolutely no relation to the other two edits you have provided, neither of which I was aware of (not that it matters - as they are irrelevent) --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE! Two editors added material about trees, and the first thing in the morning you revert! How could you not know its a revert???Opiner 13:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, please stop shouting. Now, I don't care who added what, or what they added, I did not revert to any previous version (as, presumeably tacitly admitted by you by virtue of the links provided). What I did was an edit. An edit which removed information which was false, and also information I considered irrelvent to the section it was under. Its not about reversions, its about creating a good encyclopedia article, a task that you be infinitely more successful if you refrained from stalking me, and tried helping properly.--Irishpunktom\^talk 13:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not looked at the diffs yet, but I want to point out that reverting is undoing someone's work, not simply restoring a previous version. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

1. 11:48, 10 November 2006, removing the paragraph beginning "As to other forms of life, according to Minou Reeves,..." Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion, May I suggest that to avoid unnecessary conflict over your edits, you follow a procedure such as this. You make an edit, but instead of saving it, you copy it and paste it into the talk page, or perhaps into a sandbox page, and then ALM scientist or myself or some other editor could then actually make the edit to the Muhammad page. Conflict over which edits you are allowed to make is in my opinion not very useful. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 14:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is best to avoid revert waring -- sometimes it can seem as if people tag team to avoid individuals exceeding their daily limit and it can be frustrating when there is quick reporting if you take the bait. The trick isn't to revert war but to take the discussion to the talk page. Patience and calm logic is the best response. --Deodar 07:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your input required

My dear brother, I am missing your input at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. Please help in solving this dispute for long time to come. --- ابراهيم 09:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Islam

Please see the talk page for details on the Salafi edits. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Islam in the United States

Please go take a look now. I made a new section for discussions of public opinion re Muslims, instances of persecution of Muslims, criticism of Muslims, and replies to criticism. The section needs more references and probably further thought. For instance, if we're going to describe how Muslims (and Sikhs) have been treated badly, we probably ought to discuss trials of native-born or immigrant Muslims for terrorism (there's a good article in a recent Atlantic on this; [6]) and actual incidents of Muslim on non-Muslim violence. I have the impression that if we list incidents, we're going to find that they've been directed against Jews, and that the perpetrators were in many if not all cases mentally ill. Zora 00:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Baburn4.jpg

This does not solve the issue regarding Image:Baburn4.jpg. The image was tagged with {{no source}} because the source of the image was missing. It still is, so I'm re-tagging it as having the source missing. If you can find it (i.e. provide information about the author or at least year of creation), feel free to add it. -- tariqabjotu 21:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The image is, clearly, from the baburnama, which is centuries old, meaning it is public domain.--Irishpunktom\^talk 11:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a (translated) copy of the Baburnuma, but could not find the image in there. I see several other pieces of artwork, but this one does not appear to be one of them. -- tariqabjotu 13:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Islamic extremist terrorism

I saw the page on Islamic extremist terrorism. I'm a little confused, but perhaps you can help me to understand. What's the difference between Islamic moderate extremist terrorism and Islamic extremist terrorism? I would have thought terrorist is by definition, extremism. Please, explain. Thanks, KazakhPol 00:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

Hey there, just reminding you that your participation is requested at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. At this time, we are trying to achieve consensus on criteria for including depictions of Muhammad, even if they end up in another article (such as Depictions of Muhammad) or not at all. If we decide not to include them at all, the criteria will be moot, but I think it is important to establish them beforehand. I don't think we can ask anyone to even consider inclusion anywhere if we haven't defined what that means. If you have a problem with the criteria, please suggest changes. --Aguerriero (talk) 12:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Disaffected A,merican Muslims

Tom, your comments on the Islam in the US page -- some of the things for which you want citations are so well-known that requiring citations is kind of ridiculous. However, I'll admit that the section needs more work; I put it there as a placeholder.

I hope you understand that my intent is to be FAIR. It is true that some Muslim US residents or citizens have gone past speaking against American policies into actively working against the American government or even committing acts of terrorism. I'm trying to make disinctions between people who held those sentiments before they arrived in the US (carried them in their baggage) and those who grew up here but bought into some of the Qutbi rhetoric. Seems to me that there are vanishingly few brought-up-in-America Qutbis.

Pointing out that those people exist doesn't mean that I assume all US Muslims are like that. The question seems to be just how representative those folks are. I don't think that they're representative. We just need to present evidence that the vast majority of US Muslims don't feel that way. That's where your energy should go. Zora 18:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for violating revert parole

I have blocked you for one week for violating your revert parole on Muhammad. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

what are you talking about?--Irishpunktom\^talk 15:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I made no revert, I added info

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I made no revert, I added info |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I made no revert, I added info |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I made no revert, I added info |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• I reverted once, yes, but not twice in one week. I added info to clarfiy the current status of the hagia sophia, and I made the info on the dome on the rock more specifc, adding info I'm not sure has been present before (Certainly not a revert). There was not two reverts in one week. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

1. 10:20, 24 November 2006 - removing part of caption added by User:Opiner 07:43, 7 November 2006
2. 12:08, 24 November 2006 removed material about 'having a child with a slave' added by User:Sefringle on 09:10, 24 November 2006

Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Second is a revert, to which I have previously ackowledged, however, the first is not. Its removal of irrelevent information about a building. It was subsequently removed by someone else after it was reverted back in. Thats one revert, not two. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not a revert, but "removal of irrelevent information about a building?" I do not find that convincing. Maybe someone else will. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

So, you are openly saying that there is only one revert? --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)