Jump to content

User talk:Karl Meier

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BhaiSaab (talk | contribs) at 17:21, 7 December 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Click here to leave a new message.

user page

It's his user page, editing it is vandalism. Ask him to remove it or get another opinion, but don't do it yourself. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's bullshit. I'm warning him not to put that reference back on his page. --Tony Sidaway 20:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation with Anonymous editor

Can you explain to me, why you keep restoring a personal attack me on Irishpunktom's userpage? -- Karl Meier 19:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's his user page, editing it is vandalism. And I don't keep reverting; I reverted once. Ask him to remove it or get another opinion, but don't do it yourself. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I ask you again to please quit harassing me, by restoring personal remarks regarding me on Irishpunktom's userpage. Nobody own any pages here on Wikipedia, and personal attacks can be removed on sight. If you keep harassing me, and insist on restoring these personal remarks/attacks on Irishpunktom's userpage, then I'll have to make a complaint on the administrators noticeboard about your and Irishpunktoms behavior, and bring it to the attention of a broader range of Wikipedians. -- Karl Meier 19:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You think that reverting someone's edits to a user's page is harrassment even if if it's done once?
About four other editors have also reverted you. I remember you had a very racist link on your userpage once that you absolutely refused to take off even when administators warned you. You can not edit his page, please ask him to remove it. I have nicely responded to your answer. Good bye. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that there is several members of the "Muslims Guild" that has insisted on readding the personal attacks against me, but until now you are the only administrator that has done it. In my opinion it makes it much more serious, as administrators should be expected to be experienced users, that didn't engaged in such behavior (harassment/personal attacks and remarks). Regarding the external link, I have already agreed to remove it from my userpage a long time. In my opinion it wasn't racist, it was just an angry response to the violent attacks that happend just because of a few cartoons. This being said, I have already admittet that it was wrong that I placed the external link on my userpage, and it surely doesn't give editors such as you and Irishpunktom the right to harass me months after I removed the link. Please end your insults against me. -- Karl Meier 19:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't allowed to edit another person's page and that's it. Don't do it because if he reports you will be blocked for vandalism. And please stop exagerrating one revert by me as harassment. I might have prevented you from being blocked. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't own any pages on Wikipedia, and personal attacks can be removed on sight whereever they are. If you feel that I vandalize Irishpunktoms userpage by removing a personal attack against me, then please file a report on "vandalism in progress" or quit your false accusations against me. It's bad enough that you restore these personal attacks. -- Karl Meier 20:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be removed but me reverting one of your edits to someone else's user page is not harassment even if you are biased enough to think so. You should have asked another editor or admin to remove them for you. Not do it yourself when three or four different editors have told you not to do so. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you where not "biased" as you call it, and if you really believe it should be removed, then I don't think you would have restored it. The plain and simple facts are that Irishpunktom made a personal attack against me on his userpage, and that you insisted that it should stay there. You even used one of your admin tools (the rollback feature) to insist on having this personal attack against me on Irishpunktoms userpage. -- Karl Meier 20:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Another Barnstar

File:Resilient-silver.png
The Resilient Barnstar awarded to Karl Meier by FairNBalanced for enduring personal attacks perpetrated and supported by a small group of Wikipedians, including an Administrator. Despite all this, I want you to know your hard work and important contributions are appreciated :)

--FairNBalanced 07:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I tried the link "E-mail this user" ... but you don't have one set up. Any chance you'll put one in? Just curious --F.N.B.A.K.A.Effin' Bee 17:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get my email? --FairNBalanced 03:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critics of Islam

Hey, you probably didn't know... but this category was deleted per CfD a while ago as being over simplistic ([[1]]). The list is still over simplistic but it at least has the potential to explain how one is critical of Islam since it's not a straightforward thing. As in... Amina Wadud is critical of Wahhabis who she sees as sexist... Ibn Wahhab was critical of Sufi movements... etc... they're all critics of Islam but it's not straightforward. I am deleting the category and depopulating it... if you really feel it's worthwhile then take up the issue on Wikipedia:Deletion review and please notify me so I can make a comment there too. gren グレン 12:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Islam sentiment

Some editors are busy populating this newly-created category with articles. Pecher Talk 14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence section

I see that you find it hard to stay away from me and my edits, and do a lot of research regarding my activities on Wikipedia. I guess that now, nothing will prevent me from investigating your edits and add relevant evidence regarding your countinued POV editing and other violations to your most recent ArbCom case. -- Karl Meier 21:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? I was asked to comment there via email. You seemed to have predetermined conclusions... That is no way to start any investigation. In any case, be my guest to review my edits and present them at arbcom case.
Only edits that can be viewed as somewhat contraverisal was in Batman, Turkey. I objected the cities ethnic clasification as "kurdish dominant" when such thing cannot be based on any reliable data and that such a thing should be presented as a "claim" in the light of WP:NPOV, WP:Cite etc... I really have nothing to hide, I never had.
What I call "a lot of research" is the evidence I collected against Moby Dick. IIRC you were present on that ANB/I discussion.
--Cat out 21:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To present edits that are more than half a year old does indeed take a lot of research, and that is what you just did. Anyway, as you clearly refuse to stay away from me and my edits I will feel free to examine your diffs. Whether or not your edits has been against policy is something then something that the ArbCom will make a decision about. -- Karl Meier 21:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I picked an article randomly that you have edited recently, Ali Sina. At random and reviewed the past 1000 edits reviewing your reverts. My monobook highlights administrators so its fairly easy to notice an administrator reverting you...
You seem to be alarmed when people monitor/review your edits. It is curious however the behaviour that alarms you is the behaviour you indulge yourself most...
Whether or not your edits has been against policy is something then something that the ArbCom will make a decision about as well...
--Cat out 22:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any case what is the purpose of this talk page msg? --Cat out 22:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I by chance saw the following discussion:

In my opinion, your views are right. No one owns any page here - all pages are owned by the Wikipedia Foundation. In case, you find that an administrator's action is not in conformity with the requirement of the wikipedia's policies, you should report the matter. there is nothing wrong in such reporting. Cheers. --Bhadani 12:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category marked for deletion

You may be interested.

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_16#.5B.5B:Category:People_killed_by_or_on_behalf_of_Muhammad.5D.5D

--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no standardised procedure for adding parties to an arbitration case. As you were warned not to harass Cool Cat, please consider whether including him in this arbitration case would be legitimate before proceeding, as you in turn may end up being sanctioned instead of or in addition to the other parties. If you intend to proceed, there is no fixed procedure (a motion to add parties has been tried), but an arbitrator has informed me that you can simply add evidence against the new parties. If you want full assurance, you can contact any arbitrators personally for further information. Johnleemk | Talk 18:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented 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 10:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed to add you as a party to the case in the Irishpunktom arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 16:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's allright with me. In any case I am involved, and I am sure that alleged evidence against me would have been added nomatter what. I just added myself as a party to this case, and made a comment on this. -- Karl Meier 18:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Delayed Thanks

I'm sorry I'm so late in doing this, but thanks a million for the barnstar! I don't know how to thank you more! --Kschwerdt514 05:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

Why are you so open to being labelled Anti-Semitic yet you revert any additions for the Anti-Islam or Anti-Islam categories? BhaiSaab talk 18:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that when someone makes fun of a Jewish person they're Anti-Semitic, but when someone makes fun of Islam or Muslims, they're always a critic of Islam? BhaiSaab talk 18:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia edits

Nice referencing there Karl Meier, well done. Netscott 22:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did, the references you added to those examples of "islamophobia" were who was saying what. The article has actually needed that for some time... Netscott 05:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that sort of thing is becoming routine for User:Raphael1. It seems that in his Wikipedia world view if you're not Muslim you can't be trusted when editing on Islam and Muslim related topics.
On another note, I noticed you posted a question regarding why the need for Category:Anti-Islam sentiment and Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment and the reason is that one pertains principally to actual human beings while the other principally pertains to just the religion. I've noticed that you've removed these categories on a number of occassions from nearly all articles. This has been a bit surprising to me. Ali Sina is a good example. Would you not agree that it is totally evident that he is Anti-Islam? I'm pretty sure you'll respond yes. His writings and websites demonstrate a sentiment in this regard, do they not? If the answer to both questions is yes then it should be clear that it is not POV to add the article concerning him to the Anti-Islam sentiment category. WP:NPOV allows for editors to categorize articles when doing so is totally self-evident to the average adult. Does that make sense to you? Netscott 06:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, considering that we've got quotes from John Esposito that specifically mention Pat Robertson in relation to islamophobia does it not make sense that a reference to Mr. Robertson exists on this article? Netscott 09:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Karl, please stop edit warring with User:Raphael1 on Religion of Peace and discuss the changes you want to make on it's talk page. Thanks. Netscott 19:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair.. now that you've acknowledged this message feel free to remove this section of text. Netscott 20:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This message is in fact a "warning". Some editors don't like having such things on thier talk pages. But technically to remove such a warning (and not archive it) is considered vandalism unless the person doing the warning permits it's removal or removes it themselves. Raphael1 appears to have already made a comment on the relative talk page so that sounds like a good idea for you to join him there. Netscott 20:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the strangely out of place text and dropped a note on Raphael1's talk page to kindly explain to us the logic for including it... we'll see what he says. Cheers. Netscott 23:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Anon harrasment

Sure thing. :-) Netscott 18:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, be advised of this. Netscott 18:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've posted a message on User:BhaiSaab's talk page asking about that. Hopefully he'll respond in short order. Karl, forgive my saying so but you've developed a bit of a reputation and despite the fact that the majority of your edits tend to be valid they also tend to be viewed as suspect due to this reputation. In this light I would council you to utilize talk pages more to counter fellow editor's suspicions which tend to make them have difficulty assuming good faith on your part. Thanks. Netscott 19:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In light of Arbcom's proposed decision this sounds like a good plan for you to adopt. Good on you. Netscott 19:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double Standards

Why is that when I apple the same standards to Asma bint Marwan, that you applied to Islamophobia, that you get upset? Both of quotes were sourced, so that really doesn't make a difference. BhaiSaab talk 18:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to make a point. I agree with what you said regarding quotes, but when I applied it to Asma bint Marwan, you seem to have changed your position. What gives? BhaiSaab talk 21:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, if you're trying to insist that content that largely consists of quotes stay on that article, I suggest you take them over to http://en.wikiquote.org/Main_page much like User:Raphael1 did with the Esposito quotes on Islamophobia. Thanks. Netscott 21:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==AFD==

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assassinations committed by Armenian nationalists

The article is unencyclopedic and has no precedent, involves original research and is poorly sourced. See talk page.--Eupator 18:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hardly any of that information can be backed-up by a credible source. -- Clevelander 18:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they could, placing people in such a list is simply original research, who should be there or excluded is simply the judgement of the creator of this article. Fad (ix) 19:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I totally agree, going around fishing murderers from a particular ethnic group, all more unrelated one from the other, like the example of the 16 years old kid is unencyclopedic. First, many of those murders have nothing to do with nationalists, example, Behbud Han Jevanshir killing was an act of vengence. Also, giving such a precendent, any person can decide that any ethnic groups murderers can be classified and an encyclopedic article could be formed out of it. To have such a classification, such an encyclopedic position should exist in the first place. I do not go around and post the list of the thousands of Turkish nationalists who murdered Armenians during World War I to then form an article out of it. It is unencyclopedic. Fad (ix) 19:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to present my apologies to Gökhan (and to him only) for having drafted such unencyclopedic content. How could I forget (even for a moment) that the angelic Armenian mind and such ghastly acts like politically-motivated assassination could never be associated. I am sorry Gökhan! It was such bizarre points as, some of these murderous political organizations still being active in one way or the other, sometimes under the same name (we can partition the article according to the different organizations, by the way!), some of the assassins having monuments erected to their memory (such as in California, of all places!), an entire industry functioning around propaganda, for what was it again, oh yes! for "vengence", these people killing priests, mayors, diplomats, without mentioning simple folk, for "vengence", the list of victims reads like the United Nations, for "vengence", and during all that time, their country sinking more and more into the mud, no one investing there, except to keep the hate machine alive. And since a hungry chicken will think itself to be in a corn barn, as we say in Turkish, history is built and re-built again to suit present needs. Krikor Zohrab's books become best-sellers in Turkey, and there are Armenians who don't know who Elisha Tourian is (from what I could see from a peek in a chat-site). For a moment I had the impression that it seemed familiar and that there was a sickly pattern, which prompted me to start the draft. I thought a list would do good. I am sorry again! Cretanforever

  • Comment The list you made is inconsistent and incoherent and many of the assassinations range from the 1890s to the latter half of the 20th century. What purpose would that serve to a reader on Wikipedia? to show that Armenians have had a history of assassinating and killing diplomats? What does the Khojaly Massacre have to do with "Assassinations committed by Armenian nationalists"? Again, to establish the jurisprudence that Armenians have always had a knack for indiscriminately killing including that of civilians? I might as well create a "Turkish assassins" article that picks up on every single assassination of a foreign diplomat, citizen, innocent, civilian up to and including to the deeds of the Grey Wolves and Ali Agca.--MarshallBagramyan 16:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead! Do it! Assassinations committed by the Grey Wolves! (or Turkish nationalists) Some of which already have distinct articles here to which links can be established (Bahçelievler Massacre). Include those on foreign diplomats or other foreign nationals or in localities abroad. Including notable ones that have been attempted. You can put a "See also" link to mass-killings of civilians which have occurred in enclaves (or exclaves, regardless:) where they were known to be influent. Ranging from the 1890's. Including non-definite cases for which notable references have been made to them. (like Ahmet Özkan case in Chveneburi article where, despite that article's wording, their implication could not be fully established...although it is reasonably likely) I certainly won't put your list on deletion, but let you develop it. I like lists. Cretanforever
Here's some start-up material. It's in Turkish of course, but I can translate it for you and give more feedback. It seems that a core group of Grey Wolves who lived in Europe as exiles during the military rule in the 80's seriously planned to invade Costa Rica (which does not have an army) and establish a Turkish state there. [2] Cretanforever
Being cynical or sarcastic isen't an argument at all. No one is telling you to not creat pages about certain individuals. Here the question revolve around the article which you have created. Assassinations committed by Armenian nationalists say it all, it is a list of names, and there is no way that from such a subject there could be an encyclopedic article. I don't appreciate your tone, words like 'angelic Armenian mind' evidence(and I hope not) an ulterior motive in creating such an article, which would justify its existance.
Furthermore, what is the relevancy of the monuments erected? The justifications you came up such as industry functioning around propaganda only further convince the community to request its deletion. Fad (ix) 18:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The entire point is that making such articles is pure folly. I wouldn't make such an article even if I wanted to because its unencylopedic to Wiki's standards not to mention spurous. --MarshallBagramyan 18:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Davo88 19:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is such a concept as ethnic terrorism - there is no question about the veracity of the data, although it is incomplete, many more names can be added. In case of so-called assassinations committed by Armenian nationalists it can be re-phrased as assassinations (inlc. attempted) by Armenian Secret Army of Liberation of Armenia (ASALA, on US State Dept list of terrorist organizations), or Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutsyun party), or Hnchak party, or otherwise "Armenian terrorism". If there can be Islamic terrorists, Irish, Basque or Kurdish terrorists ("nationalists"), Iranian or Syrian state sponsorship of terrorism -- i.e., all pointing to a specific nation or ethnicity -- why can't there be Armenian terrorism or "Assassinations committed by Armenian nationalists"? The latter is actually a less harsh wording. The page should undoubtedly be improved, perhaps rephrase its title -- but removing it completely? It obviously shows a certain pattern, and that pattern has been identified as such by several sources. Also, I've raised a similar question here [3] - there is a page about a certain Lt. Ramil Safarov of Azerbaijani army. Whilst more famous than perhaps any other Azerbaijani Army Lt., at the same time there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of Azerbaijani and Armenian (as well as other) junior officers in any given army who kill, or get killed, committ atrocities or are victims of such. Thus, I raise the question, why should Ramil Safarov have a page in Wikipeda -- he is just one of the victims, who has killed himself and saw killings all around himself coming from a refugee family -- and not Armenian Army Lt-Colonel, much more senior in rank, Pargev Abrahamyan, who also used an axe, but to kill his wife, not enemy combatant? Everyday rapes and murders and other grave crimes occur in both Armenia and Azerbaijan - whilst unfortunate, still, why should they be written about in an encyclopedia? --AdilBaguirov 13:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would help, if you read WP:NOT, which is a policy. I don't think I need to tell you what part is concerned. Fad (ix) 22:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I stated above, it would be fairly easy to put separate headings for ASALA, Dashnak and Hunchak actions within the article to make it look more like List of ETA attacks and Chronology of Provisional IRA actions, and I also agree that its main flaw is (and perhaps will always be) incompleteness. I object the WP:NOR relevance here though: Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position. All info here has been collected from previously published sources, to which I put direct links. There is no analysis or synthesis, it's a list of events. A killed (or attempted to kill) B at this place and at this date and in this manner. Discussions on phrasing and on deleting an article are distinct exercises. Cretanforever
You may create a list of ASALA attacks, I see no problem there.--Eupator 14:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Fad (ix) 22:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think they are worth copying in style, tone and nomenclature. However, it may be better to have an article for each of the ASALA/anything else you want to add. Chronology of PIRA actions does not include OIRA, RIRA or INLA ones, nor should it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that Angus. I changed my vote in that understanding. ASALA acts are already on the article for that organization. They just need to be wikified a bit. Therefore, I will draft something like Acts of assassination by Dashnakists etc. And Elisha Tourian and Moscow Metro Bombing, among others, certainly deserve articles on their own. Cretanforever
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Email

Hi Karl. I sent you an email last night - just wanted to check that you got it. If you don't think what I proposed will work, please say. David | Talk 19:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three-Revert Rule

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Armenian Genocide. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Stifle (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

It is usual not to mark content reverts as minor edits. Minor edits include reverting vandalism, spelling corrections, punctuation, etc. See Help:Minor edit. Stifle (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia

Karl Meier, why did you move the Efforts against Islamophobia sub-section out of the Example of use in public discourse section? (→Netscott) 22:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. It was smart of you to join the Examples of use in public discourse section next to the Use in public discourse section. (→Netscott) 22:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I noticed that you re-reverted rightly. That cite was previously too weak (I had originally worded it). When I went back and re-reviewed the text in the article I realized that just mentioning T-shirts etc. didn't do the citation justice... I too was surprised by the removal of that info. (→Netscott) 22:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Karl Meier, forgive my saying so but I get the distinct impression that you tend to discount Irishpunktom's edits on this article. In light of this impression (forgive me if I am wrong) but please be more considerate of his edits and contributions to the article. Thanks. (→Netscott) 17:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well you two do have a rather negative bit of history in common. I'm not sure when the course of that negative history started but I also have the impression that both of your editing tendencies tend to be influenced by that history. To be perfectly honest with you I have gotten the impression that Irishpunktom has become more respectful of both of our edits (particularly my own). What would be best is if you both did more to respect eachother's editing and work towards defusing this aire of negativity that is liable to build back up. (→Netscott) 17:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm making my comments in light of the whole Roger Hardy issue. I've added my view on this on talk Islamophobia... the Roger Hardy issue is old news... and it's surprising me that this is back on the table. All that I request is that you both refrain from the tendency to revert eachother's edits. I've directed this onto your talk page because you happen to editing currently but I'm perfectly aware that this text will be read by Irishpunktom (hopefully he'll respond here). (→Netscott) 17:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, what was your reasoning behind removing so much information from the "history" section? There was no edit summary when you did that which left me a bit puzzled. (→Netscott) 18:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:SirIsaacBrock sockpuppet

Karl, cheers for the helping hand there on User:Porky Pig's user page. :-) (→Netscott) 18:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on User:Porky Pig

Please stop doing this. I don't want to have to start blocking people. I've also warned Porky Pig to stop vandalizing in retaliation and warned him that he can be blocked for it. I hope you can all call a halt to this silliness without being made to stand in the corner like naughty children. --Tony Sidaway 19:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, I'm sorry to see this warning on your page particularly when you did only one revert. In light of that this warning seems a bit too much. Take it easy. (→Netscott) 20:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, kinda. I saw a developing crisis and asked everybody to cool it. Obviously it wouldn't have been fair to leave Karl out of the loop, but I acknowledge that he wasn't responsible for the situation. By warning all of you, I only wanted to make sure that none of you unwittingly contributed to the problem. I know this is tense and you're dealing with an editor suspected of some pretty serious disruption in the past. But please remember to hold yourselves to the high standards I know you're capable of. --Tony Sidaway 00:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA. The final vote was 68/21/3 and resulted in me becoming an admin!

For those of you who supported my RfA, I highly appreciate your kind words and your trust in me. For those who opposed - many of you expressed valid concerns regarding my activity here; I will make an effort in addressing them as time goes on while at the same time using my admin tools appropriately. So, salamat, gracias, merci, ありがとう, спасибо, धन्यवाद, 多謝, agyamanak unay, شكرًا, cảm ơn, 감사합니다, mahalo, ขอบคุณครับ, go raibh maith agat, dziękuję, ευχαριστώ, Danke, תודה, mulţumesc, გმადლობთ, etc.! If you need any help, feel free to contact me.

PS: I took the company car (pictured left) out for a spin, and well... it's not quite how I pictured it. --Chris S. 23:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical warfare (thanks)

Thanks for this catch. I'm not quite sure how I managed to do that. – ClockworkSoul 22:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon harassment

Don't mention it. I'd do the same for any editor who was specifically targeted as it appeared you were. (→Netscott) 19:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit in User:Deuterium/Bad edits

I don't know what's going on between you and User:Deuterium, but at first sight this edit seems inappropriate. Deuterium is permitted to gather evidence on matters concerning the construction of the encyclopedia and people's conduct within the community. Would you consider reverting it? --Tony Sidaway 16:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia back and forth

Hello Karl. You have 3 people reverting your edits on this article. It doesn't appear as though anyone is going to change. Because there are so many individuals reverting your edits could you possibly try to negotiate and get beyond this reverting business? Thanks. (→Netscott) 20:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A certain user

I noticed User:BhaiSaab has also been harrassing you. I believe he attacked you for your AfD vote [4] when it had become famous for the governments draconian ban on the site. If you wish to voice your concerns on him you should do so in the discussion on his actions here [5] and/or here [6]. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And since he personally attacked you, you may want to check out Personal ATTK Noticeboard.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom

This case has closed. You have been placed on probation for one year. See the full details at the decision page. Dmcdevit·t 03:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three-month ban from Islamophobia

Your last 8 edits on this article have been reverts [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. I stopped looking after that but I fully expect that I'd find many more reverts and few or no substantive edits in the recent past. This is disruptive and I'm banning you from editing the article for three months. You can edit it again from November 22, and I hope by then you will have learned to edit the article without disruption. If not, the ban may be renewed. --Tony Sidaway 21:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Meier, please be aware of this WP:AN thread discussing this matter. (→Netscott) 03:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rescinding this ban after consulting with the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 10:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care. I've lost any serious interest in the project. -- Karl Meier 18:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 22:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the directions Karl. BhaiSaab talk 00:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiIslam is probably the most biased website I have laid my eyes on, with the exception FFI and Answering Islam. BhaiSaab talk 02:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the Quran

Could you please comment here? Muslims are trying to get criticism of the Quran censored. They don't actually discuss what the critics they're trying to silence say; perhaps try to read as little of it as possible. Arrow740 13:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sina / ACIM

Please stop the revert war, take it to talk. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

You are again and again saying that it is not notability but something else that deleted Ali Sina's article. Kindly see Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Thank you! TruthSpreaderTalk 13:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try to read the admins reasons for deleting the article. -- Karl Meier 13:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly read the refered essay as well. TruthSpreaderTalk 13:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care if you call the edits vandalism Karl, but the fact is that his article is gone and there's nothing wrong with removing links to this non-notable person. BhaiSaab talk 16:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's great Karl. I'm sure we all enjoy vandalism here. BhaiSaab talk 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My only campaign on Wikipedia is to make sure that Islam-related articles follow policy. BhaiSaab talk 18:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

You are very sensitive about "sock puppets", BhaiSaab. You forgot to answer my previous question though... Have you every used any other account than BhaiSaab? -- Karl Meier 19:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I use about 1000 of them to vandalize Wikipedia every night. Then when they get banned I start making a fresh batch to vandalize the next night. It's part of my scheme to take over the world. BhaiSaab talk 19:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's covering up a longterm sockpuppet. I think it's User:Truthspreader. Look at the history of Criticism of Islam here. Look at the edit at 18:45 December 3. The "unmarked revert" in BhaiSaab's next edit summary must be mine, so the IP revert at 18:45 must be BhaiSaab. So we've established that he logs out of his computer. The question is, why. Look for a gap on December 3 when Truthspreader was editing and BhaiSaab wasn't. Or it could very well be User:Itaqallah. Itaqallah never mentions the fact that he's a desi, and BhaiSaab's user name itself is Hindi/Urdu for older brother. There are actually many reasons why it could be itaqallah. If you don't care to do it I'll do some legwork myself tomorrow or the next day. BhaiSaab might have been careful and interwoven his edits, though if you find that to be the case with his and truthspreader's edits, I'd try itaqallah before giving up. It could be any of the Muslim guild, really. Arrow740 09:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...His level of English, the articles that he chooses to edit, the languages that he know, his strong pro-Islamic and anti-Jewish opinions all makes him awfully similar to Yuber, that as mentioned was know to use a large number of sock puppets. -- Karl Meier 10:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Do you think my English is bad? BhaiSaab talk 22:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said. What I said was that you level of English is the same as Yubers. -- Karl Meier 17:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think is the level of English of this Yuber? I don't know him. BhaiSaab talk 17:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately his characteristics (mediocre English included) will likely be shared by many Pakistani editors. I'd support you if you did a checkuser to see if he and Truthspreader or itaqallah are the same person. He's probably Truthspreader. Arrow740 05:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you conclude that my English is mediocre? I remember learning about this word. BhaiSaab talk 05:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's probably me, too. I'd doublecheck on that if I were you, Karl. Here's the basic principle: anytime someone disagrees with you, it's best to assume that there are problems with the person's existence. BYT 06:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a principle Aminz and Itaqallah know well. Arrow740
BrandonYusufToropov: "Here's the basic principle: anytime someone disagrees with you, it's best to assume that there are problems with the person's existence." Who told you that? BhaiSaab or Yuber? Another thing that Yuber and BhaiSaab share, is that they are both very fast accusing people of being each others sock puppets. -- Karl Meier 17:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arrow740: I am convinced that a rather strong case about BhaiSaab being a sock puppeteer can be brought to the attention of Wikipedias admins. Take a look at his first edits, I believe they make it very obvious that he wasn't a new unexperienced user. Among other things, just a few edits and hours after his first edit, he reverts vandalism using the edit summary "rvv" and mark these edits as "minor edits". -- Karl Meier 17:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dansk

Aha, så du är Dansk? Cool, det visste jag inte.--Striver 19:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jag har helt enkelt inte läst det. Jag har inte skrivit till en Dansk tidigare, och tydligen så förstog jag vad du skrev utan problem :) --Striver 21:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping cool

Considering your probation, you need to be especially careful to follow all rules. There is no need to speculate on anyone's motivations. Say what content you want to change, say why, and leave personalities out of it. Tom Harrison Talk 20:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Freedom International

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Please do keep watching for the edit warriors on this article, your creating it provides a magnet for every kind of POV warrior, but the way to start was exactly like this, with evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. I will make Ali Sina a redirect. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Freedom

Great job there. Arrow740 04:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Karl_Meier&oldid=92730787"