User talk:Bless sins

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

Leave a message at the bottom of a section, or start a section at the bottom of the page, or e-mail me. For discussions up till 10 February, 2007, please see my archives.

Secret admirer

Just so you know, there's a single purpose account that's unfortunately been stalking you and indiscriminately reverting your edits. ITAQALLAH 21:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Or maybe there was solicitation. It's difficult to know for sure. ITAQALLAH 10:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait and see how things develop. No point doing anything if this was a one-off (it might just be a throw-away account). If it recurs with either that account or another then action might be needed. ITAQALLAH 23:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

As a result of the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to Israel, Palestine, and related conflicts. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if logged here.

Shell ^babelfish 01:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zakir Naik

Bless Sins, Continual removal of properly sourced content is even more severe violation, and such behavior will result in the person removing the content being blocked, not the one trying to maintain a neutral balanced Wikipedia article.

Let me quote BozMo talk:

"I don't wish to start another line of argument but it is not clear to me Bless sins that (aside the unsubstantiated bit on "stirring up contraversy") these remarks are necessarily negative. As I have said five countries actually have the death penalty for apostasy and comments along the lines that the US is the biggest sponsor of terrorism are commonplace on main stream media in the UK, millions of people refer to the US as "great Satan" or similar. Do you think Zakir would disown them? The issue for me is more undue weight. What he said is reasonably shown on google video but no one seems to have written about it so it just isn't consequential. --BozMo 07:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)"

I will addres the"issue" of undue weightage shortly. Apart from that there is not question of content having unreliable sources or the content being negative. - Agnistus (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the negative/positive nature doesn't matter: "Wikipedia standards states that fact must be presented as fact in a dry insipid un-opinionated manner. It is not up to you to decide that the "fact" which you consider to be "defamatory", can be removed and everything else can be allowed to stay. In fact editors, are not even supposed to judge weather some "fact" is positive, negative, defamatory, e.t.c. Instead the job of a BLP is to present fact as it is, without any modification or personal opinion interspersed." - Agnistus (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your input on WP:RS/Noticeboard#Are_university_professor's_blogs_RS?

I read the comment you put on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are_university_professor's_blogs_RS? here[1] and I've read a response to your comment that user:ImperfectlyInformed added here[2].

I believe user:ImperfectlyInformed was referring to where WP:SPS reads "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." This would seem to suggest (to me and, it seems, to user:ImperfectlyInformed) that www.alicedreger.com would be count as a reliable source only within her field of expertise, but like any other self-published source otherwise (as you pointed out).

Your reaction on the noticeboard, in either direction, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

If you weren't making contentious edits where you remove things which are obviously relevant to the topic, I wouldn't have to revert them. And you have been warned multiple times about block fishing. YahelGuhan (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done

The first June 12 DYK hook checked out. Done. BobAmnertiopsis_{ChitChat Me!} 01:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6/19 DYK

On 19 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Muhammad al-Shaybani, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford ^Pray 03:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Islamic military jurisprudence

Salam Alaykum

As I told I'm waiting for Itaqallah's view[3].--Seyyed(t-c) 06:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 22 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shukr, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Vishnava_talk 18:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism's view of Muhammad

Asssalamualaykum! I've noticed that your edits to a number of other articles have been very interesting (MashaAllah). I've been editing Judaism's view of Muhammad for a couple of days now and thought you'd want to take a peek (and a few clicks at the 'Edit' page :) too Insha'Allah. Do take care and hope to hear from you InshaAllah. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA articles

Salam brother,

Did you pay attention to the last comments[4]. Don't you want to work on the article anymore?

By the way, Battle of the trench has accepted as GA article. Now I've nominated Al-Kindi. God bless you.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salam Alaykum, I suggest working as GA reviewer for a wile. This help you to understand it better.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest starting with War and military articles, such as Battle of Vimy Ridge or Battle of Trenton. You can review an article about Pakistani scientist, Salimuzzaman Siddiqui. There is also another article, Moses, which has not been nominated yet, but we agreed to nominate it on Judaism wikiproject. Now, which one do you prefer?--Seyyed(t-c) 04:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but the articles don't remain there until we decide after 6 days.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 12 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Abu al-Misk Kafur, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Rudget (logs) 09:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Funnily enough, I was thinking about this today. I think an article with the title "Views of..." or "Appraisals of..." - which documents views across the spectrum- be they critical, revisionist (i.e. academic but minority theories), or more judgement oriented perspectives. Articles about a single perspective are rarely ever likely to be neutral. ITAQALLAH 22:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Portal:Discrimination

Your repeated edit to Portal:Discrimination is breaking the proper operation of the page to show a rotating selected picture each time it is loaded or refreshed. Instead only one picture is ever shown. If you continue breaking the portal I'm going to consider it vandalism (which I already do). - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving talk page threads at Talk:Racism

Hi, Talk:Racism is waaaay too huge with over 115 talk threads. Would you be willing to help tag talk sections with {{resolved}} and {{stale}} as appropriate so we can start archiving old talk threads? Even a few at time will help! Thank you! Banjeboi 22:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your baseless accusations

Can you not get it? You have reported me for stalking at least three times now, and all three times, you were informed by uninvolved editors and administrators that what my editing is not stalking. Give it up. If you are that paranoid, report me, but the likely result will be the same as before, because nothing has changed. YahelGuhan (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]