User talk:Idahoprov

Greetings...

Hello, Idahoprov, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the link that says "welcome".

I (and the rest of us here, too) hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Happy editing! Epeefleche (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Rashad Hussain, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Zhang He (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --> Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Rashad Hussain has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --> Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain

You appear to be very focused on this single article , you are reverting a lot, I see you have a 3RR warning from only one hour ago, please don't revert again as I will have to report you and it take about fifteen minutes of my time to write a good 3RR report, please move to discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --> -->

Again, you are deleting well sourced material, and replacing it with POV and OR. This is not allowed for a BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Tommy (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --> --> Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rashad Hussain. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Epeefleche (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Epeefleche (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --> --> Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please stop inserting your OR and POV into the Rashad Hussain article. You have been notified numerous times, by numerous editors. Please stop - or at the least - contribute to a constructive dialogue. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you are receiving regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Rashad Hussain ‎, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Epeefleche (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. and vandalism. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rashad Hussain. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Epeefleche (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Rashad Hussain. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Please do not create sockpuppet accounts to evade your block and continue edit-warring on Rashad Hussain, as you did with User:Factcheck12. Please read Wikipedia:Block#Evasion of blocks and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. If you wish to appeal your current 24-hour block, do it on this page, using this account only. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Rashad Hussain, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Goodvac (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for Rashad Hussain's comments on Sami Al-Arian. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Rashad Hussain

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rashad Hussain. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

I have protected the Rashad Hussain since you both continue to edit in violation of the 3RR. On a review of recent edits, I see that there are reliable sources supporting multiple points of view. I am hoping that the two of you will take this to the talk page and attempt to work out a compromise that fairly presents material from all sides. The goal is not to reach a conclusion of fact, but to present available information in a neutral manner. I hope you will work together toward a resolution of this dispute. If necessary please make use of the resources described in WP:Dispute resolution. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the compromise I propose:

"In 2004, Hussain was on a panel discussion on civil rights at a Muslim Students Association conference in Chicago. With him on the panel was Laila Al-Arian, a daughter of Sami Al-Arian, who on March 2, 2006, entered a guilty plea to a charge of conspiracy to help the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a "specially designated terrorist" organization, and was sentenced to 57 months in prison, and ordered deported following his prison term.[17][18] During the panel discussion, and following Laila Al-Arain's comments, Hussain made critical statements about the U.S. terror prosecution of Sami Al-Arian, as well as other Muslim terrorism suspects, characterizing them as "politically motivated persecutions."[19]

Some commentators contend that Hussain was accurately quoted in 2004 as calling the treatment of Sami al-Arian as an example of “politically motivated persecutions.” Others contend that the transcript shows that according to the transcript, Hussain used the term "prosections," not "persecutions," and that he did not say that the prosections were "used to squash political dissent." Hussain acknowledged that some of his statements on the panel were "ill-conceived or not well-formulated." After Hussain's statement, the White House stated that it "is expressing its confidence in Hussain, despite his concession last week that he made ill-considered statements in 2004 about Bush-era terrorism prosecutions."[21]"

I think this acknowledges both sides of the argument. Is it possible to restore this version of the page? The current version is Ism Schism's version of the events.

I recommend you take this to the article's talk page and open up a new discussion on your proposed wording. If you can reach a consensus, you can add the {{editprotected}} template to the talk page to request that the article be edited. If you and Ism schism cannot reach an agreement, I suggest you solicit other opinions through the mechanisms outlined in WP:Dispute resolution. Personally, I plan to remain neutral as far as content goes, but will continue to monitor the situation from an administrative perspective. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and I agree with your approach. Would it be fair to revert back to the version that we began with before the current phase of edits began? Currently, the page represents Ism Schism's final edits, so the page does not reflect a neutral view. Because the current page is Ism Schism's view, it may be difficult to reach consensus with him/her on changes.

Rashad Hussain's comments on Sami Al-Arian

If you have any changes you want to make to the above article; please provide reliable sources that contain the information you are adding to the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:09TH SUPER 30 158870f.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:09TH SUPER 30 158870f.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. 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 meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 03:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 03:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]