User talk:Timothy Usher/Archive 4

Re Joturner RfA

I recently posted a comment related to Joturner's unsuccessful RfA on Anonymous editor's talk page, which was quickly censored. I repost the diff here for any who are interested[1].Timothy Usher 20:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Note Anonymous editor's postfacto alteration of his initial comments, without changing the date signature, to give the illusion that he'd predicted my post.[2].Timothy Usher 21:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Finally I see the truth from the man himself. Going to have to say that imho it's a pity what's happened to User:Joturner your reservations about him aside. As I imagine you're surely aware I voted for him and I honestly think a Joturner adminship would be a good thing for Wikipedia. Netscott 22:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Censored RfA comments

Hi Joturner,

Anonymous editor has removed a number of comments regarding your RfA from his user talk page, and materially altered his own comments post-facto, with false date signatures, as is his way. However, they are available on my talk page.

As I was one of the "most opinionated" editors you mentioned in your post to AE, you might be interested to see what I had to say, along with the discussion on Aminz' talk page.

I've been reviewing and commenting on the Admin accountability page as well.

You're also welcome to discuss matters with me by e-mail with the understanding of confidentiality.Timothy Usher 04:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not interested in seeing what you have to say; you've said enough already.

Until you learn what it means to assume good faith, I don't see what could possibly be accomplished from responding to even more of your statements made in bad-faith. I answered one of your questions on my request for adminship and you essentially called me a complete liar because it didn't comply with your pre-conceived answer. On Anonymous Editor's talk page, you held me accountable for not responding to a statement I was never made aware of in the first place. You have made pointed, unwarranted allegations (sound familiar?) against AE stating that "once handed the mop (he wielded) it as a sectarian sword". You have jumped to the conclusion that the section on The Muslim Guild for members to voluntarily (or as you cynically state, by confession) indicate whether they are Muslim was designed to further separate Muslims from everybody else. Perhaps, the voluntary designation was designed to instead help members who wanted to contact a Muslim for an Islamic perspective. But of course, that thought never crossed your mind as that would be an uncharacteristic assumption of good faith. You presumed that Muslims from The Muslim Guild voted for me in my RfA because they wanted me to push some arbitrary Muslim point-of-view, when in fact it could have been possible that they simply saw me as a worthy contributor. Once again, this would go against what seems to be your inability to assume good faith. On Aminz's talk page, when two editors asked you to quit making personal attacks, you claimed that they were stalking you. And also note the accusations of sockpuppetry.

And so now you want me to comment on yet another incident? Audacity, Timothy. Simply audacity. By email? With confidentiality? The only person who should be concerned about how detrimental a response would appear is you. Others may have been convinced by your arguments (as well as a few others who, in my opinion, failed to assume good faith) during my request for adminship, but if you continue in the direction you're heading, your credibility as an editor who can correctly, or at least positively, assess a situation will approach zero very quickly. joturner 06:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand the meaning of "confession." Confession is a synonym for religious belief[3]. It is not as a "confession" to a crime.

I am surprised by the vitriol of your response - my immediate reaction is that you've confirmed that my decision - a judgement I was forced to make in shorter order than I would have liked - was the right one.

You've commented here on several matters you plainly know nothing of, which is scary behavior for an admin candidate who, if confirmed, would have been empowered to act on behalf of one or another party. It is good when an editor has the wisdom to review a matter in question before coming to a decision, particularly when it involves judgement of another editor's motivations and character. How much more so for one who openly strives to obtain the tools by which one might act upon those judgements to the detriment of the wrongly judged.

Your behavior here is markedly worse than the palpably controlled demeanor during your RfA. Other editors picked up on your anger towards critics; I didn't see it, but it's clear enough here.

Other than that, I shall take a bit to consider your post before responding.Timothy Usher 06:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Marriage

Tim, I've just expanded the "Marriage" section of Dhimmi, and I'll appreciate your taking a look at it. I'm not sure the idea of the last sentence comes accross correctly, so feel free to edit it for clarity. Pecher ^Talk 19:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Islam

Hi Timothy, I kindly request you to "not to" change the image again, as there is clear consensus for the new image.. This is only a kind reminder just in case you didn't notice, the "Consensus? Nonesense" section of the templates talk page.. Thanks  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 05:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You too

I'm disappointed. Websites, quotes, a book, and you STILL don't believe there's a dispute. Zora 23:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:God

Unless it's a clearcut vandalism, I do not support the removal of any posts in Talk. Is it possible to leave it as alternative interpretation of events and create your own in the next section? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes Tim, I trust you to fairly represent your opponent. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed misunderstanding, sorry. I agree, people should add their comments without removing others. Could you restore your text - without removing his? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped. I left a msg at his talk. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Many thanks, Tim! It's somehow ironic that those were we who tried to have it deleted. Pecher ^Talk 07:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, maybe it's just me but does your Islamic barnstaring seem a little pointish? I will display the barnstar now while I await your response. :-) Netscott 07:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Mu'tah

I've reverted and removed some of the more startrekish stuff. Pecher ^Talk 09:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Battle of Mu'tah#Protected. Prodego ^talk 21:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have replied to your comment. Prodego ^talk 23:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Falso

Tim, I suggest that you report Falso on WP:AN/I. I don't think that CheckUser is needed, as this is an apparent sockpuppet. Pecher ^Talk 19:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Timothy, Thank you! I just noticed your generous award. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just checking

I ran across your name somewhere here on Wikipedia and I have a long-lost (high school) friend with the same name. I was just wondering if you were him. If so, you'll recognize my name -- send me a note.

Thanks, Paul D. Anderson --andersonpd 21:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hadith

Timothy, I don't think you understand how dicey hadith are. Salafi Muslims tend to treat Bukhari and Muslim, the two Sahih collections, the way evangelicals treat the Bible -- it's all there, it's all true, it's easy to understand, there are no contradictions, anyone who can read can understand it. Traditionalist Islamic scholars know that there are lots of contradictions, and issue their legal opinions only after weighing the reliability of various hadith. They don't all agree, either! Western scholars are reluctant to use hadith, because so many of them are later fabrications. I'm reading a great book by Carl Ernst called Following Muhammad (it's not a religious book; he's not a Muslim, he's a professor of religion) and he says, p. 81, "Because it is always extremely tempting to have a proof text to back up one's position in a legal argument, as one tenth-century scholar remarked, 'pious men are never so ready to lie as in matters of hadith'." Believing that hadith are true and cannot lie puts you in the same company as the Islamists and jihadis. Zora 01:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I never said they couldn't lie. Some directly contradict one another, while others are just obviously made up. What I did say is that this claim is very well sourced compared to the random skeptics that were thrown up to "NPOV" it, which reflects a misunderstanding of the NPOV policy: specifically, it mustn't be construed as mitigating the reliable source policy. Stop personalizing it by claiming that I'm repping "my POV", okay?Timothy Usher 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus/Chooserr, etc.

I obviously disagree, but I'm not here to make friends or enemies. My side of story... I felt that a unilateral decision on the part of Alienus to delete content from another user's talk page warranted a warning that it could be seen as vandalism. A message from Alienus on Choserr's talk page requesting its removal would have been more appropriate - at least as a first step. I deleted Alienus's comments from my page as I would any reprimand about civility or AGF from a user I have warned. If he had responded with a reason, that would have been fine. He didn't. He responded with a condescending treatise on my lack of judgement. That's not relevant, which makes it "clutter" as far as I'm concerned. As to my screaming to the world that I'm Catholic... Where does that come from? From comments on my talk page from others? I don't see how that is me screaming to the world. Besides, I would have taken the same action if I had seen a similar edit summary where a user unilaterly decided to remove a "Keep Abortion Legal" template. As far as I'm concerned, this isn't a big deal. I just don't need a pile-on of reprimands and questions about my motives or character over it. --Elliskev 15:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have made you feel attacked. It wasn't my intention.

First, it's not just a message saying "Make Abortion History" - who could argue with that? - but a link to make donations towards this cause. The first is unwikipedian (though I second the sentiment), but well within what's been tolerated; the latter is wildly inappropriate.

I agree that it is inappropriate. Not so sure about the wildly qualification. I just think that it's even less appropriate to unilaterally remove it without discussion. User talk pages are different from articles. I'm not going to say that there is ownership, but there is something close. Since I was scoled about civility, I'll go ahead and turn it around and point out that civility would beg a discussion prior to deletion in this case. Without discussion, without civility, with a unilateral change, I feel we have an edit that warrants a warning. --Elliskev 01:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"A message from Alienus on Choserr's talk page requesting its removal would have been more appropriate - at least as a first step." - agreed.

"I deleted Alienus's comments from my page as I would any reprimand about civility or AGF from a user I have warned." - I don't think that's a very good idea, as it makes you appear defensive and lends credence to the charge, unfair as that may seem. Better to just let them stand without comment, if they don't deserve any.Timothy Usher 20:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll take your advice and restore the comments on my talk page. Thank you. --Elliskev 20:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not post any further comments on my talk page or you will be reported. I am not interested in reading McPinions on any topic. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 22:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice touch

Indeed. That went suprisingly rapidly. I suspect we haven't seen the last of that individual though. Netscott 01:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Abortion sermon

When I came across this, I thought you might like to read it:

http://msuuf.org/phpwcms2/download.php?8ba0e5068c84db91c67d12eb8babdaf6&hashID=39d597d69a354388a080e65c0c43abcb

Al 05:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

links

Timothy,

I thank you for your comments. They are obviously well meant, and I might remove the tag(s), however I don't full agree with the removal of the wikipedia userboxes, and definitely don't think I should be the only one who has to remove the links on his page. I'm not trying to cause trouble, but its just the way I feel. Chooserr 06:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Moshe

What legitimate discussion? Moshe is harassing me. Full stop. He's also somewhat hypocritical in that he removed "legitimate discussion" from his page mere hours after it occured. Go lecture him, he's you're friend so he might listen to you. Also, it is quite rude for him to insist on posting on my talk page after I've asked him not to. At this point he's just doing so because he doesn't want to be told "don't do that". Homey 22:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that might be so, and I might. But his comments don't look like "trolling" to me, rather, he was understandably angry that you'd blanked Zeq's and his comments to begin with. I imagine that if you'd not done that, this would be long over by now. It's better just to let comments stand without response, if you don't think they deserve one, and let visitors decide for themselves.Timothy Usher 22:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, I have a right to remove comments once I've dealt with them. I gave Moshe the citation for this but *he* removed it from *his* talk page. Here is the citation:

From Help: Talk page (emphasis added)

Etiquette

Most users treat their user talk pages like regular talk pages, and archive the contents periodically to a personal subpage — either when the page gets too large, on a regular schedule, or when they take a wikivacation. Others delete comments after they have responded to them.

Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings. Redirecting your user talk page to another page (whether meant as a joke or intended to be offensive or to send a "go away" message), except in the case of redirecting from one account to another when both are yours, can also be considered a hostile act. However, reverting such removals or redirects is not proper and may result in a block for edit warring. If someone removes your comments without answering, consider moving on or dispute resolution. This is especially true for vandalism warnings.

If you feel that your user talk page is getting too large and is taking a long time to load, you can create an archive and move the comments there.

Feel free to decorate your personal pages as you see fit, but keep in mind that your user talk page has the important function of allowing other editors to communicate with you. People will get upset if they cannot use it for that purpose. ---

And then I told Moshe this:

In other words I have a perfect right to remove messages from my talk pages rather than archiving them as long as I've replied to them. I've replied to your messages, so I'm now erasing them.

Now stop bothering me. Homey 16:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

yet he keeps posting on my page. I've asked him to stop posting on my page half a dozen times or so now but he keeps posting. That is harassment and trolling pure and simple. Homey 22:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's harrasment and trolling, but I agree that it's pointless for him to post there if you'll just remove it.Timothy Usher 23:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if you don't agree it's harrassment or trolling you'll have to admit it's rude. Homey 23:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's rude. I also find the way you deal with your talk page rude, even if you can find some basis for it in policy. Even if you don't agree, I think you can at least recognize that it's exacerbated the situation.Timothy Usher 23:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I guess it will have to go to an RfC. It's unfortunate, because AE has always been decent to me, but I can't see how he's not wrong in this case. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tom. I looked at the section last night, and it does seem that AE said something inaccurate. In my experience, when something is reported at AN/3RR, if several admins see it and make no comment, another admin can come along a few hours later and block. But once an admin has made a public judgment not to block, it's unlikely that another admin will block, as the case is considered "closed". I very seldom give 3RR blocks myself. Most of my block log shows vandals, abusers, and puppets of banned users. Re-adding complaints probably won't have much effect.

If you do decide to go for an RfC, can I urge you to make sure before filing it that you have a proper case. An RfC isn't valid just because someone has been naughty. You have to have two people who tried and failed to resolve that particular dispute (not two separate ones) with the user, and you have to have diffs to show those two people trying to resolve the dispute. I've seen cases where someone files an RfC and can't find a second person to certify it, even though there are plenty of people to endorse it — so it gets deleted, and the person who filed it looks foolish. AnnH ♫ 18:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales "PBUH"

I have three letters to respond to your four letters here: [4]

L... O.... L --FairNBalanced 01:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar 2

No problem, you earned it in my eyes.

KV 03:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

DO Not Threaten Me For Pointing things Out; DO not also Speculate Ridiculas Things

Are you saying I attacked this user. I have no intention of talking to him. I wanted to point out his conversation. I merely reported his behaviour. Wow you are really wiki-talking Zereshk too! 72.57.230.179

Timothy Usher, please learn to not jump to conclusions or make ungrounded claims and accusations. ALso please apologize to user:Zereshk for you disgusting and uncivil behaviour in regards to him. You have claimed he is anti-Semetic, how do you justify these unwarnted claims and personal attacks now that you have engaged me????? 72.57.230.179

Block

User:SlimVirgin has already unblocked. --pgk^(talk) 17:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Moshe's block

Timothy, no advantage was gained by me in a content dispute as I did not edit Jewish Defence League away from Moshe's version. Moshe, however, did violate our vandalism policy by removing someone else's comments from a an article's talk page. Homey 19:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You were involved in disputes on two fronts as to the content of talk pages, including your own. Perhaps you're right that this doesn't count as a "content dispute", but the point and spirit of the provision is obvious - you shouldn't be the one blocking him, there are many other admins out there, and you can't credibly claim to be impartial - indeed, who would expect you to be?

You should have presented the case to another admin as would any other editor, if not merely warn him, again as would any other editor. Don't mix adminship with your personal disputes. It's bad, and you shouldn't do it. That's all I'm saying.Timothy Usher 19:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

":You were involved in disputes on two fronts as to the content of talk pages, including your own."

And I did not tempban him for his behaviour on my page.

"You should have presented the case to another admin as would any other editor, if not merely warn him, again as would any other editor."

OK, I'm presenting the case to you. Moshe clearly violated policy he has also shown no contrition and refused to admit he violated policy. What are you going to do? Are you going to tempban him or are you going to allow *your* personal relationship with him to interefere? You can't just give your friends a carte blanche to violate policy by letting them think if they do anything wrong you'll ride to the rescue and unblock him yet that's the exact message you've sent. So what are you going to do to discipline him? Temp ban him? Warn him that he did violate policy and if you see him doing it again *you're* going to ban him? Homey 19:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just posted on his talk page. He must agree to follow policy, and not alter other editor's comments on talk pages, or risk sanction, as he's been duly warned.Timothy Usher 19:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

And he's just replied saying "I'm sorry I can't accept that."Homey 19:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

So far Moshe has:

• 1) broken policy
• 2) refused to admit he broke policy
• 3) replied to your direct warning by insisting he's right and you're wrong.

So, imagine that a police officer stops a motorist who makes an illegal turn and tries to give the motorist a warning and the person says "I'm sorry but I can't accept that" and insists he's right and the cop is wrong. Imagine that situation and tell me what would the police officer do next? Would he write out a ticket or would he shrug his shoulders and walk away.

I think, given the circumstances and given Moshe's direct rejection of your warning you have no option but to restore the 24 hour tempban. Homey 20:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. He's been warned. Let me know if he does it again.Timothy Usher 20:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam

Could you explain your revert? Thank you. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Your personal opinion has nothing to do with with what the Qur'an states. There is nothing about forcing slaves into doing anything. 4:36 reads "And serve Allah. Ascribe no thing as partner unto Him. (Show) kindness unto parents, and unto near kindred, and orphans, and the needy, and unto the neighbour who is of kin (unto you) and the neighbour who is not of kin, and the fellow-traveller and the wayfarer and (the slaves) whom your right hands possess. Lo! Allah loveth not such as are proud and boastful..." This contradicts with the revert. About the Dhimmi article, I've already responded on its talk page. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Then cite it, but without the blanket characterization you ascribed to it, as the verses cited in the very next section of the article appear to contradict it.Timothy Usher 05:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Cited. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. The cite improves the article.Timothy Usher 05:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Amibidhrohi's spam solicitation of religiously-motivated meatpuppetry

Two things: 1) Quit harassing me on the various talk pages. If you take exception to my actions, register your complaints with the Wikipedia administration. 2) I noticed your repeated practice of deleting content from pages. I'm all for assuming good faith, but when you repeatedly delete sourced information while leaving unsourced personal conjecture in these articles, you're pushing my ability to assume good faith on your part a bit far. Read WP:NPOV .Amibidhrohi 06:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, yeah, taking issue with your spam solicitations of religiously-motivated meatpuppetry[5], [6] is harrassment. Read WP:SPAM.Timothy Usher 06:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you had given the policy my talk page comment offended instead of incessantly whining and complaining, I would have listened to you. If my comment offends WP rules, I'll take a look at it and correct the problem. You've not only harassed me, but made unfounded allegations directed against other editors, based on that one talk-page comment. All you needed to do was point out what precise WP rule I was violating. You instead chose to be generally annoying and offensive. Amibidhrohi 06:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I get a little cranky when people post on the "Muslim Guild" calling for "Muslim participation" to fight "Jew[s] and Christian[s] with axes to grind."Timothy Usher 06:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

An apology that is quickly followed by another unfounded accusation. I made it very clear that what is needed are individuals with knowlege on Islam, muslim and non-muslim alike. I made it clear that NPOV is to be respected. I made it clear I don't want anyone to 'fight' anyone else. I do believe that a large number of articles pertaining to Islam and Muslims, and issues relating to them, have been skewed with highly polarized POV-biased statements and sources. On a talk page, it is my right to voice those concerns.

Also, talk pages on articles are meant for discussing the article it is attached to. Do not bring your ad hominem attacks on me to talk pages. If anyone here is trying to solicit a fight, it's clearly you. Quit the harassment. Amibidhrohi 17:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you post your spam to the NPOV Guild? To the Individuals With Knowledge on Islam Guild? No, you made your post to the Muslim Guild, and stated that more "Muslim participation" was needed to combat "Jewish and Christian authors with axes to grind."[7] Your words, Amibidhrohi. Quoting you isn't slander.

As for talk pages to articles, the solicitation and arrival of meatpuppets directly affects the article, and I've the right and obligation to point it out. Again, if you don't wish it discussed...don't do it.Timothy Usher 17:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Timothy Usher! Logic doesn't work. Instead of reasoning you push your point of view. To you "vandalism" is what you don't agree upon.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.26.157 (talk • contribs)

PROD

Please read the process on WP:PROD before re-adding PROD tags on articles where it has been removed. Agathoclea 08:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:SPAM

Hounding editors who try to find like minds will succeed in one thing only: driving the practice underground. It would be a lot easier for the Muslim Cabal everyone seems to think operates here to conduct its business on a private mailing list or IRC channel. Instead, the Muslim Guild have chosen to operate in public, where their actions are in full view of the community. Can't you see that your barrel-scraping rules-lawyering attacks are potentially of much greater threat to the integrity, openness and cooperative spirit which defines wikipedia? Please, please stop. — JEREMY 10:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Other users' links

I'm was looking over a few user pages, and stumbled upon Nick Gorton's page, on which he has a link to a "women's health clinic". Is it alright if I add a similar but pro-life link to my page? Chooserr 05:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My personal reaction to this user page is, yuk. However, it doesn't appear to be a solicitation. I'd remove it were it up to me, just because it gives me the creeps. Do we really need to know all this? But I'm not sure that it falls into the same category, as it's not an overt solicitation. Let's run it by Sidaway.Timothy Usher 05:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In a word, no. I'm sorry, but I'll be forced to remove it, or have someone else do the removing.

First of all, Nick is a medical professinal who actually volunteers at this clinic, not some advocate who's advertising for their POV. Second, he speciaizes in transgender patients, which means that he's not likely to be involved in abortions, even though it's a women's health clinic. This is a hail mary pass. Al 06:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Without making value judgements, what if an editor is a member of the Klan, the American Nazi Party, Communist party, whatever Fred Phelps miserable group is called, Scientology, etc. and provides links to where he works, which just so happens to be the homepage of the group in question? Transgenderism is hardly mainstream, even where I live (which if I told you would strike you as a canonical example.) It doesn't mean we should condemn it, but recognize that extraneous opinions and documentation of lifestyles are divisive on Wikipedia. And as per the earlier discussion on Template:User satanist, it's absurd to pretend to not recognize that this is more divisive than Template:User Christian, similarly with transgenderism vs. "this user is married" or the like. I really don't know what the right solution is, but prohibiting all of it is the only thing I can think of that gets rid of provocation without disciminating against marginal points of view. It's a difficult enough to deal with this question in articles without also (pointlessly) being faced with it in userspace.

Nick's user page does satisfy current understandings of policy, but I wonder (not sure) if it really should - and I'd include about half the user pages I see along with it.Timothy Usher 06:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Now change Dhimmi article

Now change the article as you have suggested to me here. What is stoping you now? --- Faisal 06:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Two things: 1) I'm kind of busy 2) I'd like some cites. Is that okay with you? Let's see what other editors have to say, as well. We both agree that a version war is unnecessary here in principle. That's a good start.Timothy Usher 06:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No I am not playful. I am not that kind of person. I really made the article heading "Now change Dhimmi article" but by mistake forget the "W". It is not a big deal. You can keep the current heading. --- Faisal 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you'd changed it to "New..." in light of the new changes. Sorry. I've been dealing with many such games here and on my user page.

Anyhow, the article has been changed. Looks fine to me.Timothy Usher 20:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have notice that I have done it twice. Hence may be it was "no" indeed. --- Faisal 20:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Unitarianism

Apologies... I have to admit, I don't understand the comment you left on my talk page about Shahada, Unitarianism, and "bait & switch" ? --FairNBalanced 07:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny trolling

Funny indeed, and I also loved Ibrahimfaisal's suggestion. It's pity he retracted it, it would be funny to see it implemented. Pecher ^Talk 07:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Faisal's got a point: what if the Guild became home to progaganda-pushers?Timothy Usher 07:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User of the term "meatpuppet"

Greetings Timothy, unfortunately I see you are using this term fairly frequently. I would advise you to refrain from using such a term with such frequency as its use is frowned upon for its personal attackish connotations. Thanks. Netscott 10:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See this section of WP:SOCK relative to the civility of using that word. Netscott 10:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The definition here is too narrow. It's not a dictionary, and doesn't cover the full range of its uses. If I ask you, hey, Netscott, please come revert on Game Theory, and you do, you're acting as my meatpuppet - a real person who in context may as well be a sockpuppet. The WP example assumes only that the solicitation occurred off WP, say, on a BBS - but the Muslim Guild might as well such be a BBS, the way it's been handled.

Comments on conduct aren't personal attacks. Spam and resultant meatpuppetry is itself frowned upon, not only because they stack votes and otherwise alter consensus (most typically through blind reverts), but because they inspire discussions such as the one we're having. No spam = no meatpuppetry = no discussion.Timothy Usher 10:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against spamming but merely the usage of that term. Honestly I'm sure you'd do better to refrain from using it. Spamming is bad no matter what it is called particularly when it is done to organize a POV campaign. Netscott 10:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Userpage

No problem! I saw it on recent changes. Cheers. —Khoikhoi 00:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So put the material back...

But don't revert to incorrect information. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Caliph Umar also expelled all non-Muslims from the area of Hejaz, where the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina are located, jusifying his actions on the words of Muhammad "I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim."Sahih Muslim, 019:4366" Should I put that part back? It seems irrelavant. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Tell me how it is now. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look in a bit. Thanks for the heads-up.Timothy Usher 01:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I had been wondering what you were up to. I'm guessing comparative linguistics has been impacted significantly... I'm trying to keep off Wikipedia myself, but every once in a while I see something particularly egregious and succumb to the impulse. - Mustafaa 02:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

A lot of stuff, huh? I actually disagree on the "founder of Islam" business - for one thing, the approach you propose (to regard the secular view as equivalent to NPOV) is essentially unprecedented for religious articles. You will not find "Abraham (or even Adam) is a literary character in the Book of Genesis", "Jesus was conceived in the same way as everybody else", or even something as relatively uncontroversial as "L. Ron Hubbard made up Scientology, and its claimed miracle cures don't work" - not without specific attributions of this belief to non-members of the religion. If this were not Wikipedia practice, these articles would be unsalvageable - every time a person from the "wrong" background came across it, it would get destroyed. Like it or not, such compromises are essential to Wikipedia's continued usefulness; the trick is to keep them in the background rather than turning an article into a series of "he said, she said"s. But I haven't got time to get involved in this...

You might be interested in the Algerian Civil War article, one of my two flagship projects here (the other is Laal language, of course.) In fact, it would be great if you could add it to your watchlist - you seem to be on Wikipedia a lot more than I can afford to be, and you know the sort of rubbish that tends to creep into unwatched articles about political subjects.

The templates are an excellent idea. Shame the MSA site hasn't got more stuff on it, though in Arabic at this point I think every major hadith collection is available online. You could try one for Tafsir Ibn Kathir and Tafsir al-Jalalayn as well. Mustafaa 01:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Islam

It seems to me that the guy there is doing the same thing I have seen many people do on Christianity, which is considering anything that sheds Islam as having any flaw whatsoever as being a violation of NPOV. As I had proposed to a Muslim girl before, and spoke to a Muslim group getting a majority to side with the Socialist Party over the Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, and the Republicans that didn't show up, I could help, but I'm wary about getting into another fight like with Christianity. I'm still waiting for the fight with Str to end so that I can move on to work on some other pages.

KV(Talk) 04:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have a pretty strong stance and be unsourced...... but I was particularly worried about Sabians being so blatantly POV with saying that it has been more or less been applied inaccurately.

KV(Talk) 07:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

It's not a bad idea.... but I think it's a bit too soon relative to my last block. Plus, I'm not so sure I'd be confirmed I have had a few controversies to my name since I've been around here.

Aside from that I see you're still making "friends" yourself...hehe. Netscott 21:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Identity crisis?

Are you User:Jeremygbyrne's "crusader" or User:Monty2's "jihadist"? I'm confused now. hehehehehehehe Netscott 06:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that our new "friend" might be someone else. Netscott 08:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If not then one is surely as clueless as the other. Netscott 08:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Still evaluating your idea. It's conceivable. As if incivility is the point.Timothy Usher 08:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How are you?

Hey Timothy,

What's up? Long time no see! I have decided to edit "criticism of Islam" article (and only that one actually). How is everything going? Congrats for your success in changing "Isa" to "Islamic view of Jesus"!! You eventually did it! without me ;) Take care --Aminz 06:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks also to Tom Harrison, Striver and several others...please don't forget them....but there are still many more articles to change! Musa, Ibrahim, etc., etc.Timothy Usher 09:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Islam

I've made the archicve. I'll think about the project; more later. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk page protection

Since the incident which caused the protection seems to have calmed down and hopefully can be moved forward productively, I have unprotected this page. If there are further problems see if you can resolve them without the need for protection (its a lot friendlier (sp?) to everyone), but if not then you can ask on WP:RFPP as that will likely get you a faster response. --pgk^(talk) 16:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No vandalism please

Removing a link to a disambiguation page is vandalism. Don't do it again. Homey 17:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Good faith content disputes aren't vandalism. Please take a few moments to brush up on the policy. Thanks.Timothy Usher 20:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation link at History of South Africa in the apartheid era

Hello Timothy Usher,

The removal of the disambiguation link at History of South Africa in the apartheid era has been brought up at the Administrator's noticeboard, and I wanted to give you some background information on disambiguation pages in hopes that you would understand the situation. Please pardon if you already know some of the information.

When multiple pages have the same name, a disambiguation page is created in order to direct readers to the correct article they are looking for. Many times with disambiguation pages, there is one article that is determined to be the "primary topic"; that is, it is by far the most common article to be searched for under that term. When this happens, the primary topic takes the initial name, and then links to the disambiguation page. For example, in the case of Tree, Tree is the primary topic, and it links to Tree (disambiguation) at the top of it's page.

The case of History of South Africa in the apartheid era and Apartheid (disambiguation) is very similar. Since Apartheid redirects to History of South Africa in the apartheid era, it is considered the primary topic of all pages named "Apartheid", and a link to the disambiguation page Apartheid (disambiguation) is therefore appropriate at the top of the page, and should not be removed.

As I know you are aware of, there is currently discussion going on regarding the assorted apartheid pages. If you have any opinions, please participate in the discussions in the appropriate place. However, removing a needed disambiguation link is not the way to go about that. Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions. -- Natalya 19:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Natalya,

The chance that a wikipedia reader searching for "Apartheid" is actually looking for "Sexual Apartheid" (for example) is infinitessimal. The link, therefore, is a waste of space from the readers' point of view. It exists only to steer them towards wilfully biased articles about unrelated subjects created in the service not of scholarship, but of political activism. Several of the articles on the miserable disambiguation page appear to have been created only to justify the disambiguation page itself, and to provide cover for the central purpose of making the political statement, "Israel is a lot like Apartheid-era South Africa" - a cynical abuse of this encyclopedia. The removal of the link plainly improves this article, and Wikipedia.Timothy Usher 20:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Userpage

Thank you for your comment and your suggestions about how you think I should administer my user page. I have considered your proposal, but do however chose to decide myself which comments I will let stay at my user page. Thank you for the understanding. Bertilvidet 21:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam

I am sure, that you are having good intentions by adding the "do not" advices to the project page, but I have stated some concerns I'd like you to address on the talk page. Raphael1 16:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Views Requested

Would you take a look at Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies and render an opinion there? I'm looking for a few outside opinions to help with a dispute over text by an editor I have a hard time working with. Thanks! --CTSWyneken 19:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll do so in a bit.Timothy Usher 20:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks! Let me know if you ever need a pair of eyes. --CTSWyneken 22:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

How did this got recreated ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier/Apartheid_wall —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeq (talk • contribs)

Good question. I've posted a report on WP:ANI.Timothy Usher 20:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You should have just asked me.

It wasn't recreated. On June 3, the day before the Apartheid wall article AFD ended and in anticipation of the finding of a consensus to merge I copied the article to a subpage of Israeli West Bank barrier so I could undertake the merge once the AFD was complete. I anticipated that the reviwing admin might blank and redirect the page without merging it. S/he did so on June 4 and once that happened I copied the contents of the subpage and pasted it into the main article thus executing the merge. Jayjg then made some adjustments. I had intended to delete the page but forgot. If you had brought it to *my* attention I would have deleted it. Instead you tried to make a federal case out of it.

I really, really am tired of your fishing expeditions Zeq. Timothy, why did you wrongly assert that I created the subpage *after* the AFD ended when, in fact, I created it the day before? I'd appreciate it if you corrected your incorrect statement on WP:ANI. Homey 01:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

HOTR, I didn't make a "federal case" of it, nor attribute malice in my post to WP:ANI, but merely stated:

"After the article Apartheid wall was merged and redirected to Israeli West Bank barrier as per the results of the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall, User:HOTR recreated it under a different name, Israeli West Bank barrier/Apartheid wall."

Not "Homey attempted to circumvent the results of the AfD by..." or anything like that. If that's what I'd meant, that's what I'd have written. I've no particular reason not to accept your perfectly reasonable explanation here. I just wanted it deleted, which has been done.

Regarding "after", I did notice later that it wasn't technically after, but as "when it became clear that the AfD would succeed" wouldn't sound any better, it didn't seem worth changing. Please accept my apologies for this inaccuracy, and for any distress it's caused you.Timothy Usher 01:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Putting something on ANI is making a federal case out of it. Why didn't you simply bring it to my attention? Your apology and explanation belongs on WP:ANI along with striking out your false statements. Homey 01:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your vigilance in this matter.Timothy Usher 01:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I hope once bitten you'll take future accusations by Zeq with a grain of salt. See The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Homey 01:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'll keep it in mind.Timothy Usher 01:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, they are much appreciated.Homey 19:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Blocking of User:Tony Sidaway

Dumb answer: to cover my ass. I wasn't about to block this user without notification. RadioKirk talk to me 03:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, let's propose changing the policy and see if it finds consensus. Simply put, to allow an admin of this user's standing to write policy as he sees fit and arrogantly ignore admionishments to stop sets a dangerous precedent—a new user would have been blocked with hearty endorsement. Anyway, thanks for the note. :) RadioKirk talk to me 04:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's in the works? In the meantime, incremental change. RadioKirk, I completely and utterly disagree with what you're doing, but I've no doubt that you're acting in good faith, and recognize it took guts/nerve/courage/recklessness/folly - whatever one calls it, according to the judgement of the beholder.Timothy Usher 04:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi sockpuppet

That late-night sockpuppet on Dhimmi is getting more and more persistent. If it reverts one more time tonight it will crack 3RR. What do you think is the next step we should take? - Merzbow 07:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If he breaks 3RR (course he might already have done so if regular username were taken into acoount), we report him. I was about to revert his last edit as a sock, but you (by seconds) beat me to it.Timothy Usher 07:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: this is clearly the same individual who vandalized my userpage, was rving this article earlier and trolling Muslim Guild and Pgk's talk page. All that said there were some good-faith edits in there, the user made several non-trollish edits to several talk pages, and has been honorable (so far) in not using his technical slipperiness to evade 3RR. Despite the early sandbox edits, he's an experienced user, probably a banned one...I've no problem seeing him here so long as he plays by the rules.Timothy Usher 08:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The sockpuppet has recently been sharing edit summaries with a certain user, in both directions (i.e. cases in which the sockpuppet originated a certain summary and the user later used it, and vice-versa). Am I just paranoid or is this enough evidence to do something more? - Merzbow 16:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've shared edit summaries from time to time as well. There banned user I mentioned has the same general attitude towards these subjects, and a history of impersonating other users, sometimes only implicitly. However, if your suspicions prove correct, a certain active username will be in a lot of trouble.Timothy Usher 17:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

May I borrow this?

"For users to complain is as if dogs were to complain that their uniquely-identifiable urine has been washed from fire hydrants.Timothy Usher 06:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)"

I'd like to quote the above, if I may, as shown, on my talk page before the archive bar. I thought it would be a good idea to ask you if you minded first. --Tony Sidaway 07:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

By all means! I'm flattered.Timothy Usher 07:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)