User talk:AladdinSE

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Hello AladdinSE and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Babri Mosque pictures, NPOV

Hi Alladin

Thank you for putting up a picture of the Babri Mosque I have also addeded pictures of the beautiful Interior. It is important that this mosque is rembered. It seems some ardent RSS followers keep changing the commentry on the page with is from a neutral point of view and often vandalise it. As a favor Could you read the Babri Mosque Page page and if you agree that its neutral can you keep an eye on it the version is 16 DJan 2005 I add this date as it keeps getting reverted to some partsian rubbish

kind regards

Lalit shastri

I think partisan bias from both sides have sullied the Babri article. I just did an extensive revision, in which I toned down rhetoric on both sides, and reorganized the entire structure of the article. I deliberately left the Disputed Neutrality tag, because I think my version could benefit from some further editing. I have noticed a few worthy contributors whom I trust to continue the task.--A. S. A. 01:22, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

PD images?

Hi, why do you think Image:Israel&OccupiedTerritories map.gif and Image:Shark Palestine Caricature.jpg are PD? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:13, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for visiting my talk page. The map was published on line some time ago and is no longer available on the originating website. No copyright notices were violated. The caricature was released into free internet circulation and the PD by the author. Thank you. --A. S. A. 08:09, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Request for AMA assistance

Hi, I'm the Coordinator of the AMA, and I am wondering if anyone has contacted you regarding you request for assistance. If not you might want to take a look at our list of members and also the Member Statements and see if there is anyone in particular you want to ask to help you. You can usually contact advocates on their talk pages or by sending them an email. If you have any problems getting assistance, please do let me know and I will try to coordinate something. — © Alex756 06:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your initiative. I put in a Request for Comment, and the resulting rejuvenated Talk discussions resulted finally in a consensus, and the caricature that was repeatedly deleted has been finally agreed upon and will stay. If it anyone reneges and deletes it again, I will follow your helpful directions and contact an advocate.--A. S. A. 07:15, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Babri Mosque

Thanks for your edits on this page, Just to let you know I have replaced your picture with a similiar but much clearer one and added a further picture of the front gate and a caption. I have added a quote from Uma Bharati from the Sunday Times whose correspondent witnessed the destruction. I have also corrected some spelling and grammer. Continue to keep an eye on this page and also the page on Jaffa Isreal which comes under similiar attacks from the right wing

Levy

I realize that you are passionate about the Babri matter, but I must tell you that in my opinion you are not being vigilant enough to keep the article NPOV. After careful consideration, I reverted several of your edits. The leading picture is a fine addition and I thank you for it. The second picture is really very superfluous, as there is already several pictures of angry Kar Sevaks, and more pictures are beginning to clutter the arrangement. Please see the Babri Talk section for more information on revert reasoning. Thank you.--A. S. A. 17:48, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder

... and yes, I'll pick up good Wiki habits eventually, Godwilling.

Again, many thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 11:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Please note my latest comments on Ariel Sharon re: dispute resolution. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Noted, thanks.--A. S. A. 17:27, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Have you tried, Wikipedia:Edit summary? --Viriditas | Talk 02:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi AladdinSE. In order to link to the sections you have edited, you have to include the Wikitext itself in the summary. So, if I wanted to have an edit summary which linked to this section, I would include [[User talk:AladdinSE#Edit summaries]] in the summary field. If you have other questions, or this isn't clear, please don't hesitate to ask. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you want there to be a little arrow and link, you have to edit a specific section, not the whole page. Wipiedia will automatically insert /* */ characters around the section headers, which will convert to the linked arrow in the Edit summary. You can enter the characters yourself if you want, but there is no guarantee the link will work then. Does that help? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Format of Babri Mosque

About the left-right image format, i feel that if all images are right justified then the article is easier to read and follow through. This is especially true of people using smaller resolution for their browsers, as they will have to constantly use the scroll bar during the beginning of the article. Also all images on one side makes the article look much better formatted. I hope i have convinced you about this and if you have any comments please leave a message on my talk page (talk). I am as of now not reverting the article until you input is in. kaal 04:59, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to what I read in Wikipedia about recommended picture layout styles, the alternating right-left method is optimum. In the Picture Tutorial, the recommendation reads: "Perhaps the easiest way is to make floating images alternate left then right - this way they don't come into contact with one another, and so can't stack up in an unattractive way." In my opinion all pictures alligning right wold be unattractive. There are all sorts of people with all sorts of monitors, we can't optimize for all of them, so I suggest following Wikipedia guidelines.--A. S. A. 07:39, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Settlements

Hilltop Youth could use some work. --Zero 01:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I can do much for it. Initial googleing revealed little useful and NPOV info. Not even an official website. Perhaps later when I have leisure to look deeper.--A. S. A. 22:53, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

UN Resolutions

Would you be able to please put these at WikiSource? Full texts of such things don't belong in Wikipedia itself - these should only be for encyclopedia articles on the resolutions. You'll find a lot of them are already at WikiSource - myself and another couple of people have put in quite a lot of effort there. It'd be great if you could help out some there - but if this is the case, it'd be nice if you could look at a couple of the current examples and used the existing examples. Ambi 15:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was mulling the idea of transwikifying the full text of the resolutions into Wikisource, but that requires some research on my part because I am not yet knowledgeable in this area. My first work on a UN resolution article used as a guideline another Wikipedia article on a UN resolution which had the full text of the resolution as well as some commentary and analysis, if I remember correctly; therefore I just followed that format by including the full text. The recent initial creations on UNSC resolutions I made were only because they were linked (to Wikipedia not Wikisource), but not created, by other editors in articles I was working on. I created them so that they would not be broken "red" links. If these articles were to be transwikified, or rather, the full text of the resolutions were to be transwikified (into Wikisource), then articles that link to these resolutions can link to Wikisource not Wikipedia.--A. S. A. 15:59, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

The Israel and the UN page -- or whatsitsname

Aladdin,

I looked at the page -- it seemed rather LUMPY, and tit-for-tat. It doesn't immediately scream BIAS, except perhaps in the last section, where the pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli content of the UN resolutions is analyzed and the UN resolutions are said to be more pro-Palestinian. Yes, well, so? If the Palestinians have a better case, wouldn't they get more support? The analysis purely in terms of power politics, avoiding all the ethical and philosophical issues involved, is really quite misleading.

That said, I'm not sure that I want to jump into the maelstrom of Israeli-Palestinian debate. My own political position (I'm anti-Zionism, anti-Palestianian-nationalism, anti-nationalism of ANY sort) is so far from the norm, and my distance from both sides so great, that I'm not sure I want to make the effort. Zora 21:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ibn al-Tiqtaqa

Hi AladdinSE:

I myself am an historian and am am beginning a concentration on an area I know little about, Islamic history & civilization. I began a page on Ibn al-Tiqtaqa, but I only have 1 source in English thus far. I would like to attach the page to Ismail I, however my source, Toynbee uses the phrase "forcible conversion". perhaps you can give me some help. My efforts are to arrive at facts etc, not to peddle a point of view. Thanks nobs

I'm not sure forcible conversion is accurate. The Encyclopedia Britanica's article on Ismail I says: "The Shia sect of Islam was proclaimed by Ismail l to be the established religion. The fact that much of the population considered him a Muslim saint as well as shah facilitated the process of conversion." As for other sources, I'm afraid I can only direct you to a library and also to google the man. Try alternative spelling Ibn al-Taqatqa. Good luck.--AladdinSE 01:46, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Image up for deletion

I see that User:IZAK didn't think to drop you a note that he has proposed deleting Image:MoneyJews.jpg. (See Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#March_31, where I imagine you will want to weigh in) I understand his concern, and while I do not entirely agree with him (I think that for the article where the image is used, it is appropriate), you really might want to consider whether inclusion of images like this, even contextualized, may open doors that are better left closed: I can imagine a lot of similarly hateful images of various groups and individuals becoming part of Wikipedia, and it's not a pretty thought. In any case, you might want to consider re-uploading it with a less provocative and more descriptive name (like Image:NaziPropagandaMoneyJews.jpg. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:38, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion#March 31 [1] for vote on offensive Nazi propaganda "image" (

File:Der Giftpilz - Gott des Juden - Nazi propaganda.jpg

[2]) Thank you. IZAK 09:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The image is a very important part of the Anti-Semitism article which illustrates one of the most repulsive and oft-repeated anti-Semitic slurs, that of the coveting of money. It is clearly shown in a negative light, as are all of the images in that article. Thank you Jmabel for alerting me to the vote. --AladdinSE 10:01, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Aladdin: Jmabel "beat me to it" by 8 minutes (in fact he did not have to be so "speedy", he was merely interested in giving his critique of the image), I informed you in enough time. Also please refrain from removing my headings, this is the second time you have done that. Thank you. IZAK 10:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When you insert POVs in headings, I will remove or reword them. Notice how Jmabel's heading is neutral "Image up for deletion" while yours inflammatory and seeks to influence the issue. Also, since he was the first to mention this issue on my talk page, you should have entered your submission under the already existing heading, not created a second one. As for the 8 minutes, that may well have been the case but it is still suspicious because it is also possible that you only made a show of notifying me after someone else did; I have a right to object. Thank you. --AladdinSE 10:20, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I see, so inserting so-called "images" from Nazi propaganda is not suspicious whereas the timing of my objection to it "is still suspicious"... So let's see, which would an objective observer say is the more suspicious? You want to insert the actual offensive material (which you claim is mere "NPOV") and yet you object when I call it by it by its real name: Nazi -- (and that makes it "POV")... "funny" logic I would say?! This, then, is getting to be really suspicious! IZAK 03:18, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As you can see from the response to your request for deletion, Wikipedians completely disagree with your assessment of the image, or that I was attempting to do such a vile thing as you have accused me of. Votes have been overwhelming against your position. So I guess that makes us all Nazis, right? --AladdinSE 06:52, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Aladdin old chap: If you haven't noticed: The majority of voters also declared that the so-called "name" YOU gave the image "MoneyJews" (how "charming" of you indeed!) is definitely offensive and it -- the name of the image -- appears to fully support the Nazi mentality of Jew-hate. You must thus immediately go about changing the name of the hateful Nazi image and expunge it from Wikipedia ASAP! IZAK 09:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did not give that name, incidentally. It was the name attached to the picture from the download cite. For the record, I have not the smallest objection to it being renamed. The issue of deletion, on the other hand, has been decided, and you have been defeated. The image will stay, and will be a potent indictment of nazi anti-Semitism. --AladdinSE 09:16, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

So then why didn't you rename it then?... Because it will now have to be renamed due to the unanimous consensus that its name is offensive. IZAK 21:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't notice, I am not an administrator. I said on the vote page that I have no objection at all to renaming. It seems you are so bitter at being unanimously defeated on that image that you are trying to imagine that you have won some sort of victory, when in fact no one has raised the least objection to renaming. Any administrator, or whoever knows how to go about renaming images, can proceed in whatever way Wikipedia sets out. --AladdinSE 04:27, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

I have NOT "accused" you of anything. I have NOT called you a "Nazi" so please do not lie, manipulate, or create inuendo. I do most definitely say that (for reasons that remain unclear and only you would really be able to tell us if you so desired) you (NOT me) introduced two images from both Nazi and Arab propaganda: One anti-Jewish (hence it -- the image -- is Anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi, right?) and one that is anti-Israel (making it --the image-- pro-PLO, right?). So actually I feel very proud and honored that I am able to object to the truly objectionable (maybe one day the majority will agree with me, and even start liking the Jewish people as well...but as we know that is a tall order for a world used to persecuting Jews...and feels threatened by any sign of perceived Jewish "strength/s!) Do not confuse most Wikipedians charitable acceptanace of Free speech as some sort of "agreement" with your own personal philosophy of life which remains unknown until such time as you can either explain in some detail on your user page what you truly believe and why. Until such time as your world-view becomes clearer, we can only judge by your "User contributions", see [3] which do seem to indicate an extremely strong pro-Arab POV (Am I mistaken? I love to be corrected believe it or not.) So for now, "the jury is still out" as far as any normal person would see...and I do not need anyone to guide me when I see trouble brewing from someone mostly fully-opposed to the policies and actions of the State of Israel and the Israel Defense Force. IZAK 08:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wish you could step back and take an impartial look at the emotional declarations you make. Your own extreme pro-Israeli and anti-Arab bias is so evident that it is just hypocritical make these statements. As for being mostly opposed to the policies and actions of the State of Israel, I stand by my individual edits and contributions. I oppose the illegal occupation, annexation and colonization of Arab lands by Israel (News-flash: The rest of the word does too), as I oppose the systematic oppression of an entire people. Perhaps on day you can distinguish between international anger at Israeli policies and the seperate issue of Anti-Semitism. Your arguments about the two images have been rejected, and you just can't handle it, so you are trying to account for the other editors' reasoning; well they can and have accounted for their own reasoning. As for my personal philosophies, Wikipedians are not required to publish them, and they are frankly none of your business. In the apt words of Firebug: "I think that you need to get a little less touchy about the contributions of others, and focus more on what you can add to Wikipedia." Also, please stop cluttering my talk page with emotional rhetoric. You have informed me of the images, now move on.

P. S. I have tried to reply several times to my own talk page but you keep tweaking and reediting your posts, that I can't get a word in edjewise. Also please note that my user name is AladdinSE not Aladdin. --AladdinSE 09:16, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

AladdinSE: To say that you "can't get a word in edjewise" because I "keep tweaking and reediting...posts" is most facetious indeed. The fact that I try to edit my posts so that spelling errors are corrected (for example, if I were you I would be "tweaking" my spelling and esuring that "edjewise" should correctly be spelled as "edgewise" with a "g" and not a "j") and to ensure that my thoughts and arguments are clearly and accurately conveyed to the reader, (all of which) have NOTHING to do with your ability or means to "get a word in edjewise". There are no limits, inhibitions or strictures on when and how you care to respond to my, or anyone else's arguments. So "to pin the blame on me" for either your inability to express something or your lack of appropriate responses (always with a pro-Arab POV) has absolutely ZERO to do with me and is due 100% to what you choose to do on Wikipedia at any given time. Do you really think that I "was born yesterday"? There are never any technical reasons holding any Wikipedia user back from contributing to Wikipedia articles and discussions at any time for any reasons other than being banned or the servers being down. IZAK 21:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You edited and re-tweaked your post on my talk page eight times for one single paragraph. Do you know how frustrating it is to try again and again to reply only to find that you have once again tweaked your post. Even this last paragraph, does it really take you FOUR tries to put together a post? Is all this really so terribly important to you? Firebug was so right about you! Concentrate on your own contributions! You really need to give up this inferiority complex that consumes you. You have lost all sense of proportion and your priorities are truly SAD. These rambling diatribes are becoming beyond pathetic. This latest bitter, wondering post makes no sense at all. I don't know what you imagine you're talking about, but I really have had enough. What part of MOVE ON do you not understand?? --AladdinSE 04:27, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I would say that someone who delights in posting on Wikipedia "images" from Nazi and Arab hate propaganda that clearly demonizes Jews and Israelis, and then claims That I "...have lost all sense of proportion and your priorities are truly SAD..." and that my writings are "...rambling diatribes are becoming beyond pathetic..." is himself lacking any insight and sense of perspective about how his acts are hurting others, to say the least. About my own writing style and number of edits, you may be curious, that generally I write one (lengthy) response, but then when I re-read it I may find tiny errors, usually related to spelling, that I try to correct, even if it takes a few times of re-edits. I am not the world's best typist. Somehow I still maintain that it is crazy to say that the number of times I correct my spelling mistakes in any way influences or disturbs your ability to say anything anytime on Wikipedia to me or anyone else. For goodness sakes man, get some perspective on life! IZAK 04:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I shall not answer your latest diatribe. The response form other editors regarding those images speaks for itself. I am very proud of the anti-nazi stance expressed by that picture. As for editing and tweaking your posts for errors, we all do that. I am not only a bad typist, but also a criminal speller. That is why I use a spell checker. I also review my posts several times before I save. Perhaps you can follow this example. That is why Wikipedia has the PREVIEW button when editing. You should preview and tweak, spell check, etc, before you save. This way you significantly reduce the confusion that results when someone is trying to reply to your posts, or is working on the same articles as you. I will be deleting any more rhetoric you place on my page. Proper new topics relating to Wikipedia articles or issues, are always welcome. Otherwise, please MOVE ON. --AladdinSE

Shark Palestine Caricature listed for deletion

Note: Image:Shark Palestine Caricature.jpg has been listed for deletion. IZAK 06:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I have voted. Incidentally the inclusion of the picture was subject to extensive consensus in the Arab-Israeli conflict Talk page.

Please sign all comments with the four ~~~~ "tilde" sign so that we can know who makes which comments. Thank you. IZAK 21:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did. My vote was signed --AladdinSE 06:58, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC). I always sign, I think it is essential. Did I forget to sign somewhere? If yes, please show where, and I will insert a signature. Also, at least on my talk page, reserve bullet points for an actual list of points, and use indentations to differentiate between posts. Thanks. --AladdinSE 06:26, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous. An image is an illustration, and this image illustrates the POV in question admirably. I notice you've been being hounded a bit lately; don't let it faze you. Getting rid of the bias that pervades so many Israeli-Palestinian conflict related articles is an enormous task in the course of which you can expect considerable opposition; but it's essential if this encyclopedia is ever to reach a state where it can be taken seriously. - Mustafaa 10:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just ignore IZAK, he'll run out of rant eventually. It's not like anyone takes people who put entire sentences in bold seriously anyway. - Mustafaa 07:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have been. I've just deleted his/her latest rant on my Talk Page. I didn't even read it. I warned that user to stop ranting and to restrict remarks to brief, informative statements. I ignored similar outbursts elsewhere. --AladdinSE 01:44, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Binational solution

It's not only unbalanced - as if the threat of death formed no part of Kach's rhetoric, or as if such a solution could ever be carried out without such a threat! - it's a stupidly set up dichotomy. The anti-Zionist transfer solution is neither restricted to Islamists nor universal among Islamists. - Mustafaa 23:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Riccati

I'm interested on the problem you notified on our request for assistance page. I'd like to advocate you. Send me a message to my talk page, if you like. --Neigel von Teighen 22:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Responding to the message on my talk page). I think you should try once again. Meanwhile, i'll be collecting some information about him. I'm sure i have seen other offenses by him somewhere...

I think it would be better to use e-mail from now on. Use this link to send me a message. --Neigel von Teighen 21:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Women in Green

I'll let others weigh in on Women in Green. Apart from the fact that I disagree with them on many (though not all) issues, I find them incredibly annoying. --Leifern 12:03, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

Image copyright

Thank you for uploading Image:Shark_Palestine_Caricature.jpg and for stating the source. However, its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. If it is open content or public domain, please give proof of this on the image page. If the image is fair use, please provide a rationale. Thank you. --Wgfinley 18:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Umayyads

Thank you very much for taking the time to fix and enhance the Umayyad article. By the way, as often for arab words, I have seen different spellings for the word Umayyad. At least in Wikipedia it seems consistent (after I have correct my own editions :-) ) --Zelidar 20:31, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Hello from America

Hello, I just thought that you could gave me a hand on the West Bank article. I have some knwonledge of the endless Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but I believe that a person that is involved in middle east affairs can add much more contribution to the page. Keep in touch ! Messhermit 02:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I already contribute to that article periodically. --AladdinSE 02:54, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

E-mail bounced!

Hi, here's your advocate again. You sent me an e-mail some days ago and tried to reply, but I got my message bounced. Can you send me a test message so i can try again?

About Riccati: I didn't found the arbitration I thought he had. Have you sent him another message?

I'm in contact --Neigel von Teighen 21:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A word of appreciation

Aladdin, I want you to know that I'm very happy for your presence on Middle East articles as your viewpoint is underrepresented at Wikipedia. Cogent, reasonable editors like yourself are needed to keep the articles balanced and NPOV and it's a pleasure seeing your work in those areas, even though I may not always agree with all your edits. So often, these articles turn contentious and hostile, but you are a breath of fresh air with your collaborative spirit. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:41, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed. This is very flattering and humbling, and makes me want to redouble my efforts not to disappoint this assessment of me in the future. Thanks again. --AladdinSE 21:48, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Suleyman Ahmad

AlladinSE: I'm relatively new to wiki and need help creating a diambiguation page for Stephen Schwartz, to merge both Stephen Schwartz (author) and Stephen Schwartz (historian) together. Right now the historian who writtes under the name "Stephen Schwartz" is inaccesable unless one knows him as Suleyman Ahmad. if you can help let me know. Thx --nobs

Thank you for honoring me with your request for help. At this time I am not familiar enough with Schwartz to render any effective assistance other than pointing you to the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page which I'm sure you already know about. I am currently traveling and unable to undertake any extended research due to time constraints. As it is I am barely able to keep up with minimum edits to the articles I work on as well as the associated Talk discussions. My I suggest some more experienced users, who may also have more time, like Mustafaa and Mel Etitis, two very honorable and experienced Wikipedians. --AladdinSE 04:53, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Votes for Deletion:Islamofascism

I thought you'd be interested in the debate about deleting this topic. It seems to me it is very redundant and it is just an offensive slur (comparing Islam to Fascism), and there are clear double-standards being used by many of the editors. The sole reason that they can provide for keeping it and deleting Judeofascism is "the number of google hits", which seems to me a very weak argument. Yuber 23:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Still bouncing...

I still get your e-mail address bouncing, though I receive your messages. Anyway, I think you should contact Riccati again and let's see what happens. --Neigel von Teighen 23:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Maysalun

I started the Battle of Maysalun article and I was wondering if you knew any more about the strength of the armies or the number of casualties. Also, where is Maysalun exactly? I know it's 11 miles from Damascus but I didn't know which direction so I just put west (since I assumed the French were coming from the West).Yuber 02:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find much information regarding statistics of the battle, but I did a small revision with the details that I did have at my disposal. The battle was in fact west of Damascus, as Maysalun refers to the Maysalun Pass in the Anti-Lebanon mountains. --AladdinSE 07:41, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

UNRWA

Hello, I would like to draw you attention to this article, if it is not already on your watchlist: United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Last summer, there was a discussion on the Talk page ([4]) about whether a controversial ambulance photo should be included, after which the photo was removed. However, earlier today user MathKnight restored it to the article [5], with the edit summary "NPOVing a little" (!). I wonder whether you would care to take a look and voice your opinion. Thanks. -- Viajero 14:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Aladdin, I notice you haven't editing for awhile. I hope your absence is only temporary and that everything's all right with you. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:14, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Some personal circumstances, Slim. You're very kind to ask. I put up a few words about it on my user page. I knew it was time to come back to Wikiland when I began to resume my interest in world news. A little voice nagged: "Quick! Must hurry back and provide the proper analysis and updates to the articles!" Ha ha. We'll be laboring to drum sense into each other's skulls again only too soon, fear not >:-] --AladdinSE June 29, 2005 12:26 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your personal troubles; hope things are better soon. Jayjg ^(talk) 29 June 2005 18:24 (UTC)

Thank you, most kind :-) --AladdinSE June 29, 2005 23:08 (UTC)

Uri Avneri and Gush Shalom

Hi Aladdin! I came across your contribution to the Arab-Israeli conflict talk, became interested and visited your site. Upon seeing your icon (intertwined Palestinian and Israeli flags), I couldn't help but to think of Uri Avneri's web site. Uri Avneri is a former Member of the Knesset and a cofounder of the Gush Shalom. He also maintains a newsletter with very insightful commentary on developments between Israel and Palestine. I wanted to draw it to your attention, thinking you could be interested [6].

The site is in German. I'm very disappointed that I haven't been able to find an english website for you (I'm convinced there must be one somewhere). Anyway, I'm sending it along. Perhaps it will be useful to you.

--Philopedia 16:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I was sable to read it via a translation website. It's very interesting, thank you for the link. --AladdinSE June 29, 2005 12:29 (UTC)

Nice to see your name again

It's good to have you back, Aladdin. I'm sorry to hear about your troubles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:59, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Slim. That's very much appreciated. --AladdinSE 06:10, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Aladdin, I just noticed the mention on your user page about sad circumstances, and I'm so sorry to hear about your recent difficult times :-( May your suffering heart be alleviated by light and good that surely hides behind the clouds of grief. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you MPerel, it's very good of you to stop by. --AladdinSE 04:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestinian conflict table

I moved the table of emblems to the "Proposals for a Palestinian state" page", as I felt that it had no relevance in a general conflict page. However, a certain user keeps insisting on putting it in. Your input would be appreciated.Heraclius 04:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I think there are arguments that can be made for the relevance of the emblems in the conflict article, although they are by no means essential. The official seal of the State of Israel, for example is not included, which is odd. I will read the Talk and offer any thoughts if I think they can help. --AladdinSE 11:57, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Bush and the Barrier

This article in Haaretz may indirectly help tie the wall with Bush's statement, here's an excerpt: "Once disengagement was on the table, Israel enjoyed wider freedom of military action, culminating in the assassinations of Hamas leaders in 2004. From Sharon's perspective, the biggest prize of disengagement has been George Bush's letter of April 14, 2004, in which the president acknowledged: "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." Sharon portrayed this as a pledge to keep the large West Bank settlement blocs "part of Israel forever."" [7] Unfortunately it does not associate the wall itself with Bush, and it is only an opinion article. But I thought it might give you some ideas. Ramallite ^(talk) 02:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, it's a good article, with much analysis and long term postulations. --AladdinSE 08:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Image copyrights & Fair Use

Welcome back, colleague, hope it gets better! Regarding the image: I think that all three 1937 Peel maps originated from some official source (either the UN or UK, they have official numbers and that dreadful style). I could not recall exactly where I got them from, so I decided to claim fairuse for now. I can see your point but I'm not an expert in copyright issues and didn't have a chance to read the entire talk yet. I hope the PD map that I have added is better than none. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Caliphs

I don't think they really should get the Islam template... they are related, yes, but they are much political rather than institutionally Islam. Well, the caliphate as a notion is... but the calips as a reality not as much so. gren グレン 20:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The office of the caliphate has behaved differently over the centuries, at times a temporal papacy and at others a powerless figurehead. But it has always symbolized the succession to the authority of the Prophet. The link "Caliphate" is in the template itself; surely it follows that all caliph articles will contain the Islam template. --AladdinSE 01:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Damascus

You say you "found no evidence of the capital being moved to Harran". Where did you look? This is stated as having happened by Hugh Kennedy in his "The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates". Can you provide a contradictory source of similar standing? Palmiro | Talk 16:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I looked in 2 encyclopedias, it was not an exhaustive search. That tidbit of information, if accurate, is not generally known. As best as I can recall, most histories I've read place the capital at Damascus until the massacre of most of the Umayyad royal family by Abbas and the beginning of the Abassid caliphate. I have never heard of the Harran relocation. Nevertheless, if you are confident of Kennedy's information, by all means revert my edit and include the citation. I agree that unless someone comes across a contradictory source, it should stand, and I shall have learned something new. Also, while you and others are always welcome to share your thoughts about articles on my Talk page, I think that for the benefit of other editors working on the Damascus article, this entry would have been more appropriate in the Damascus Talk page. Thank you for your efforts. --AladdinSE 20:18, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

It surprised me as well when I came across it, but Kennedy is a pretty well-respected historian so I was inclined to believe him without looking for a confirmatory source. I wasn't sure if you'd see it on the Damascus talk page, that's why I came here. Palmiro | Talk 15:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Israeli West Bank barrier

Hi Aladdin, I've left a few comments on the talk page about the disputed Bush quote. I do see this as original research (in fact, a classic example of it) and I've tried to explain why on the page. The reverting over it has been going on for some time, and I've tried to stay away from it because you're a good editor, and I don't want you to feel you're being ganged up on, but I've decided I may revert it myself now, if only to help see an end to the dispute. I wanted to let you know as a matter of courtesy. I'm sorry we can't agree about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:55, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Slim: Your courtesy is admirable and very much appreciated, and quite unnecessary. Rest assured that I reciprocate my respect for your abilities as an editor, and would not see your reverts or disagreements in Talk as ganging-up. Nevertheless, thank you for your thoughtfulness. I have carefully read your comments and others' in the article Talk section, and responded accordingly. I am also sorry that we are not able to agree, and that past compromises have not held. I'm sure that you'll agree with me that this too shall pass, we just have to persevere.--AladdinSE 07:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Aladdin, I entered into the debate a while ago with a suggestion that I thought would be helpful, but wasn't. I would like to make it again, though. I would really like to know precisely what you are trying to say, allowing all the original research and naughty things you want to make up your ideal encyclopedia article on the subject. I think that part of the problem with this interminable debate is that everyone involved is a reasonable and intelligent person who knows and respects Wikipedia rules; this is making the debate on it theologically complex and abstract and frankly putting me, and I think others, to sleep. It might have been actually easier to solve if there were more flagrant POV pushers involved - their contributions can be easier to neutralize in a consensus way.

In particular, as Ramallite for instance noted, why not see if we can make the points you want to make without introducing Bush's quotes, or putting them in the particular place you want them. I urge flexibility on the second point, and I do agree with you that the introduction of Bush's 2004 and 2005 coments have the same amount of relevancy and OR ness. I would also agree that the reason why Bush said the barrier should not be considered a border is because it so obviously is very easy and liable to be so considered; it should be easy to find encyclopedic references interpreting his comments this way.

As I see it , their are three main linked topics barriers, borders and settlements. "Barriers and borders" and "barriers and settlements" clearly belong in the article. "Borders and settlements" which is what the 1st Bush quote unfortunately only directly addresses is more problematic for this article. However, there are things involving the first two uncontroversially relevant things which are not in the article and which might help to fill the needs you see and obviate the necessity for including Bush in the place you want - for instance, it mentions that Sharon originally opposed the barrier, but not why. He opposed it because it would be a de facto border, and a limit on his territorial ambitions - he opposed it because he wanted more land. This goes to seeing the border as a barrier. Concerning "barrier and settlement" something that springs to my mind is the fact that even the dissenting US judge Buergethal, noting that much of the barrier was manifestly there to enclose settlements, declared that these parts of the barrier are ipso facto illegal because the settlements themselves are absolutely illegal. Anyway I hope that these observations help somehow. John Z

John, these observations and threads are very interesting and have possibilities, but I am not in a position to vouchsafe their usefulness, for the following reason. As these suggestions and threads are not mine, I have difficulty envisioning a "final product" as it were because while they have been suggested, none of the people suggesting them have actually made any edits along those lines. If Ramallite or you or whomever else who sees potential here would actually propose an actual concrete edit, I would be greatly intrigued to study it.--AladdinSE 11:15, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Ny unsolicited 2 cents again - Aladdin, I know I might be annoying you, but I have to say again, I don't really understand 100% what you are trying to say, probably from my own laziness. I would really appreciate seeing a more concrete and comprehensible if POV edit from you. As I said, it can be easier to deal with POV pushers who know the TRUTH (maybe protecting the article from admins and only allowing say RK, Yuber and Plautus Satire edit it would help - it needs something about death ray lasers :-) ) - I think it might help if you could write down and post somewhere what you think is the truth without worrying too much about wikipedia restrictions, because it might be easier to modify it to everybody's satisfaction than if the debate keeps going on the way it has been now for months. After you did that it might be possible for others to see how to help get your points across using alternate citations or using the Bush quotes differently. I personally am refraining from putting anything substantive in the article right now, as I think there is a possibility it might make things worse or be wasted work and just get inadvertently or illogically deleted in the current atmosphere, and I just don't have the time to make an edit that might possibly resolve matters. John Z 22:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

John, I think you will satisfy your need for those details if you read the Talk and article edit history going back to before April, 2005. Some of it has been archived but of course still available. By the way, I am traveling now and won't have time to answer promptly every day, so I may take 2 or 3 days but eventually I'll reply here and in the article Talk page. --AladdinSE 07:13, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Doubt on the fair use of an image

Hi, I saw your uploaded image Buss Suicide Bombing West Jerusalem3.jpg is from AP and tagged as fair use. Why is it fair use since I believe the agency is a commercial one & to the best of my knowledge all images of from news agencies like AP/Reuters are fully copyrighted. So if you can explain the rationale behind tagging it as fair use, it would be nice. Else I feel it's better removed to avoid copyvio. Thanx Idleguy 18:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hope you're okay

Hi Aladdin, I see you haven't edited recently. I hope things are going well for you, and that you'll return to editing soon. I'm running out of people to argue with. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite well, thank you. I was exhausted after participating in the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts in both a professional and volunteer capacity and with increased responsibilities at home and at work I was scarcely able to read my eMail. After things calmed down I just got lazy and neglected Wikipedia disgracefully :-( I'll be editing regularly now I [sort of] promise! And dang it Slim, where do I go to learn about colouring my text/signiatures and adding funny faces. You know I cannot long bear to be outdone by you! ;-) --AladdinSE 03:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I've only just seen this. Glad to see you back! I'm sorry, Aladdin, you may have to get used to being outdone by me. I trust you'll take the defeat gracefully, like the gentleman I know you are. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, go on then. Smilies here, though I can never get the template to work, so I just write e.g. image:smile.png: click on the face to go to the image page for the name. As for colors, someone showed me how to do that ages ago so all I can do is reproduce it: in my preferences, under nickname, I have [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} and then I have the "raw signature" box ticked. Hope that helps. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Marshal Villars.gif

This image has been tagged for speedy deletion in large part becauase when you uploded it you didn't specify a source, and gave the copyright only as fair use. If you have a source for this, please specify the info. I suspect this may acctually by {{PD-old}}, but without a source, there is no way to tell. DES ^(talk) 06:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hasan as a caliph

You seem pretty adamanat about removing all references to Hasan ibn Ali as a Sunni caliph. Yet, in the Hasan ibn Ali article, it is stated that several notable Sunni personalities have accepted Hasan as the fifth caliph. Whether you want to believe those claims is another issue. Pepsidrinka 00:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It is pure nonsense. The order was: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, and then the Umayyad Dynasty and then the Abassid Dynasty and so on and so forth. Hasan is limited solely to the Shiite Imamate. A short lived claim with no substantial state-wide backing, no actual rule, does not a Caliph make. He did not rule, his claim was short lived, and he resigned said claim. Quod erat demonstrandum. --AladdinSE 00:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That's fine that you feel that it is nonsense. I also feel that the order you mentioned is correct. However, our role is not to decide what the order was, but to convey it. And since a handful of notable Sunni scholars feel that he was the fifth caliph, we should mention it to maintain a NPOV. Pepsidrinka 00:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, mention it by all means, but what you are doing is altering the historical consensus and replacing it with what a "handful of scholars" have said. We cannot say "Hasan bin Ali was the fifth Sunni Caliph." We can only say, in a relevant subsection, that "a handful of scholars consider him to be the fifth Sunni Caliph, even though he never ruled, was never installed, and himself resigned any claim etc etc."--AladdinSE 00:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Image dispute

Hi Aladdin, sorry to hear you're having these problems. CltFn shouldn't change the source or tag. If you say you took it, we have no reason to disbelieve you. Regarding using it in the article, CltFn's objection is that Nomani is grimacing, so do you have another one from the same event that you could use? We're not supposed to use photographs that in any way diminish a person unnecessarily, and it could be argued that using an image of her grimacing does that.

Regarding CltFn's screenshot, I personally have no problem using it and claiming fair use (though I'd prefer to use one of yours because it's a free licence). However, my understanding is that, strictly speaking, fair use cannot be claimed for a screenshot unless it is being used in an article about the television program or movie that the screenshot depicts. In other words, the screenshot of Nomani could be used in an article about the show she was interviewed on, but not in an article about her, and I believe CltFn has been told this before (though I'm speaking from memory).

Regarding the IP addresses, they resolve to the same area CltFn's have resolved to before. If she used them to violate 3RR, or to suggest in some other way that the IP was a second person, it's a violation of WP:SOCK, and you can point that out to an admin and ask for a block (but it can't be me, because I'm involved in the editing). However, if CltFn and the IPs weren't pretending to be separate people, there was no policy violation.

I hope some of the above helps. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The review action I was referring to related to the unjustified alteration of my photograph licensing to a no-source-scheduled-for-deletion tag without notification. If you have any information on possible recourses that would be very appreciated. That's unjustified tag change as well as failure to notify uploader. As for the picture, no I do not have "better" ones, and I need no others because the picture is fine and she is not grimacing. You yourself inserted that picture into the article. That's (at least) the two of us that see no problem with it, versus CltFn.--AladdinSE 12:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I reinserted your image because we're not supposed to claim fair use for an image if a version with a free licence is available, so strictly speaking we should use yours. I do think it's caught her at an awkward angle, however, and could certainly be seen as a grimace. You're right that she shouldn't have changed your tag, though that happens a fair bit, but probably the only recourse is to start a request for comment on CltFn in general, not just the change of tag. Perhaps you could start a poll on the Nomani talk page as to whether your photograph is suitable and invite interested editors to comment? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Zaynab bint Ali

Aladdin, that's a big improvement! It's great that you gave the Sunni and Shi'a views equal space. I think I'd change a few ords -- if I had time. I'm supposed to be leaving for my zendo like, RIGHT NOW, and instead I'm checking my watchlist. Try to get to it later today. Zora 18:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR

You and Khalid! seem to be having various edit wars on the inclusion of qualifiers in various articles. Surely there must be some compromise you can make with him. Nonetheless, I am just letting you know that you have reverted 3 times (as my understanding of the rule) now in the Yazid article. Pepsidrinka 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If you had been a bit more thorough in your investigation you would have realized that we have already reached compromises regarding qualifiers on two [8] [9] separate articles. We are still at variance regarding others. I am perfectly aware of how many times I have reverted, and have never exceeded the limit, which is 3, not 2. It's curious that you would take the trouble to warn me about the 3RR since I myself warned you and Paradoxic about it when we had a disagreement in late December regarding the Hasan bin Ali article. Therefore, it stands to reason that I am fully aware of the policy. Nevertheless, thank you for your consideration in this matter. --AladdinSE 05:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if you were more thorough in your "warning" of me, you would have realized that I had only reverted once when you had warned me. Secondly, you sound as if the 3RR rule is an allowance to revert three times. Perhaps you may understand the policy, but you may not (or you may) understand the intent of the rule:

The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others.

If you find you have reverted a page more than even once in a day, it indicates there may be a problem and you should try dispute resolution, starting with the article's talk page.

Nontheless, my warning you of the rule was not to claim that you violated any such rule. Rather, to let you know if you were unaware. Were you to revert 3 times in another article a month from now, I would similarly feel compelled to let you know of the situation, regardless of no break in policy. Pepsidrinka 17:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

To feel compelled to do so after knowing my mind so clearly is odd behavior indeed. Also, your lecturing exposes an ignorance of the article history in question. After my edit on January 9, I had already started a talk discussion regarding the disagreement, well before your advice was delivered. Regardless, please observe that the disagreement about qualifiers is not hopeless, and I have provided the links where compromises have been reached. I hope that will assuage your deep, kind concern over this matter. --AladdinSE 21:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I just happened to come upon this rebuttal of yours. In fact, you are wrong on your time observation. My initial mention of your 3rd revert was at 4:09 UTC on the ninth. Your edit on the ninth was at 9:12 UTC on the ninth. Clearly your initiation of the talk was over five hours later. And I never did say the the disagreement was hopeless. Had the disagreement taken place in the talk page rather than in countless reverts, I never would have felt "compelled". And another thing, in hindsight, your comment about being "fully aware of the policy" proved to be incorrect as well as your were unaware of the 24 hour timeframe that 3RR depends on. Pepsidrinka 22:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, you were just as unaware. You assumed the exact same time-stamp application of the 3RR that I did. And I can't get over how people can consistently misread the edit histories. I initiated the Talk "over five hours later"?? My Talk entry was completed and posted (04:22, January 9, 2006, not 9:12) within 10 minutes of my revert (04:12, January 9, 2006). You will notice that my edit summaries were more explanatory and descriptive than Khalid's, who sometimes did not provide revert justification at all. That, along with the compromises achieved with other articles (linked above) should certainly have relieved any reasonable editor of this curious "compulsion" of yours.--AladdinSE 22:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Your edit was at 9:12 UTC, not 4:12. 4:12 may be the time in your time zone, however, since UTC is the timezone used by Wikipedia, please don't justify your edit times using your own time zone (go to your prefrences, change your offset to 0, and then save, and then see if you made your edit at 4:12). Secondly, you stated in your previous comment that you stated you started the talk after your edit on the ninth, and I similarly mentioned your edit. Reread my last comment, nowhere did I make that claim you started the talk at 9:12. I merely followed mentioned that your last edit was at 9:12. And now, lets take a look at the first message in this section. It clearly says that I made the comment at 4:09 UTC. And making edit summaries that provide justification is not reason enough to violate 3RR, unless dealing with vandalism (which 3RR does not apply to).Pepsidrinka 22:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

My settings have been at Wikipedia default value since I joined. Since they have been at default value consistently all this time, then the only frame of reference possible is the default time-stamp provided me by Wikipedia itself. You can't come in several days after the edits and say "change your preferences and then re-examine". That throws a monkey wrench into the whole process. The settings have always been consistent, that's what's important. I'm a bit confused about what you are syaing in your last post, but as far as I can tell, you were just plain wrong, the Talk section was posted right after I performed the revert, not several hours later but within 10 minutes. Regardless, the salient point is that compromises have been and are continually being reached regarding qualifiers.--AladdinSE 23:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

P. S. I have just taken your advice and altered that offset value, not for the purpose of revisiting this discussion which is completely impractical, but so that I can avoid time zone confusion in the future. This should have been the default value, in my opinion. The time-zone default as it is now potentially creates a lot of confusion.--AladdinSE 23:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As you have clearly admitted by telling me you altered the offset value, you contradicted yourself by saying you have always been at the "Wikipedia default value", as the default value is does not change until you either change the offset value manually or you use the browser settings on the preference page. Nonetheless, the timestamp on the talk page reads as follows, AladdinSE 09:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC), whereas the first timestamp in this discussion reads Pepsidrinka 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC). Unless we are arguing two different things, you clearly initiated the talk page discussion over 5 hours of my message. Pepsidrinka 01:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Your "clear" sense of perception is as convoluted as your rambling and confusing second-to-last post. No, Wikipedia default value was not UTC. It did not have an offset value of 0. I have never altered any Wikipedia preference at all before today, neither offset value or browser settings or even skin etc. I was using Wikipedia's default values all along. I only changed it today for the benefit of future edits. For the last time, your time-stamp reading is wrong as we must use a uniform consistent setting for the edit history, not revisit the same with altered preferences. I made my edit and the corresponding Talk entry exactly when I said I did. I do believe we may well be arguing about different things, but it is long since this discussion outstripped any useful discourse on the original subject matter. --AladdinSE 04:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Block

I blocked you for edit warring on Yazid I. Please don't do that. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 17:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Excerpt from Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Excessive reverts: Sysops may block users who violate the three revert rule by reverting any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally."

You have blocked a user who did not violate the 3 revert rule, and who was actively involved in Talk discussions in attempting to reach a solution. You did not block the other party, "Khalid!", which is completely unfair. Note that I do not think Khalid! should be blocked, because the user did not violate the 3RR either, but I am illustrating your bias in this matter. As far as the Yazid I article is concerned, if you will direct your attention to the Talk discussion that I started regarding Qualifiers, the reason Khalid! and I were reverting. Let me quote: "May I suggest looking for compromises along the lines of those developed in the Caliph [10] and El Siddiq [11] articles." If you follow those links, you will see that we were reverting on those articles as well because of qualifiers, and reached a compromise. It is outrageous to block a user, and only "warn" the other, who has never violated the 3RR and who was actively engaged in Talk discussion, who in fact STARTED the Talk discussion in an effort to reach a compromise, and who has demonstrated a proven record of discussion and compromise. If you review your actions and my record in a neutral light, you will remove the block immediately and apologize. I will fight to have this abuse of administrator powers exposed. --AladdinSE 21:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Your email address bounced when I tried to reply. You can just talk to me on this talk page, or email me... phroziac at gmail.com. Do not do both. Anyway, you were reverting to the same version, atleast 4 times within 24 hours. the other user didn't, and was actually making a new and different edit every time. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 21:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Please use indentation rather than separators on my Talk pages, thank you. There may be some inadvertent ISP-defined SPAM filter blocking your eMail address, I'm not sure. Still, discussion here is fine with me; in fact I prefer it to be a matter of public record. I am glad that you articulated your specific claim regarding "4 reverts (to the same version) within 24 hours", because it is now a simple matter to expose your manifest error. You need to reexamine the edit history of the Yazid I Article. You will find that there was NEVER a violation of the 3RR. In fact, for January 8, there were only 3 edits by me period. The other edits are are one for January 3, one for January 6 and one for January 9; hardly a pattern of edit warring! Remove the block immediately, and apologize. --AladdinSE 21:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I used a seperator because it was unrelated to the other thread, in that it was a reply to an email. I normally use indentation. It's not a spam filter, it says your email address doesn't exist. Confirm you set it properly. As for the reverts, revert 1, revert 2,revert 3, revert 4. Note that WP:3RR is against 4 reverts in 24 hours...not one calendar day. One calendar day would be rather confusing anyway, since different parts of the world have days at different times. Additionally, attempting to "game" the system or be a "wikilawyer" by reverting 3 times a day is a blockable offence also, though it's not directly a 3rr violation. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 22:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If I were attempting to "game the system" my pattern would not be one for January 3, one for January 6 and one for January 9. January 8th was an exception at which time I started a Talk discussion to help reach a compromise. The "excessive reverts" blocking policy does not state that calendar days are excluded from consideration. The very fact that different time zones are involved makes the 33R only practical for the calendar time-stamps provided by Wikipedia's own servers, not the editors' time zones. Moreover, you are supposed to warn an editor if you think he/she is misconstruing the 24 hour time period, and use your blocking sysop powers sparingly. So kindly remove the block and provide warnings in the future. Also please state/link the Wikipedia policy where you claim that not exceeding the 3 revert limit but still reverting up to the allowed 3 times is actually a "blockable offence." That would be an extremely curious subject for my own edification.--AladdinSE 23:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Read the WP:3RR policy. It says TWENTY FOUR (24) HOURS Not 1 calendar day, and not twenty four metric hours. Reverting is not a constructive method of writing an encyclopedia. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 20:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one revert on the 9th? explain these reverts[12][13]. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 20:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I was busy and couldn't get to a computer sooner. That lecture would be more suitable for an editor who did not engage in extensive talk discussion, and who did not have a proven record of compromises and even outright concessions, when convinced by other editors in Talk. If you had done a little research, you would have discovered this about me. And talk about being a "Wikilayer!" You may well have a case for the 24 hour interpretation, which you certainly have applied very strictly, and moreover without warning, which is required by policy. I on the other hand did not count the seconds and scheme to revert the moment my version was changed. I simply saw that Khalid! had made the edit on January 9, whereas my last edit, according to the Wikipedia edit history time-stamp, was January 8. I have always gone by the calendar day time-stamp, as I have seen umpteen editors do on all sorts of articles. I reverted and explained my reasons in Talk with no suspicion whatsoever that I had only to wait some 3 hours to comply with your strict 24 hour interpretation of the 3RR. The previous days show a very relaxed attitude regarding reverting on both my part as well as Khalid!'s, hardly an "edit war". That alone, not to mention that I started a Talk discussion regarding our differences and proposed specific lines of compromise similar to our related differences in other articles (linked above), should have at least given you pause about a block, and instead lead you to give me a warning. I would have appreciated that very much, as I have followed the Wikipedia day time-stamp innocently since I joined this marvelous project. But no, ignoring the policy about using your sysop powers sparingly and with warning, you slap a 24 hour block, not even the customary 4 hour block for a first offense (if it indeed was even an offense).

You have also failed to quote the policy that backs up your statement, quote: "attempting to 'game' the system or be a "wikilawyer" by reverting 3 times a day is a blockable offence also." I really would like to read where that is stated, because it seems an odd contradiction. Please quote your source.

And yes, there was only one revert on the 9th, I fail to see how you can consistently misread the edit history. The time-stamps from your own links are:

Revision as of 16:31, January 8, 2006, and

Revision as of 04:12, January 9, 2006.

QED. --AladdinSE 18:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Wikilawyering.--Sean Black|Talk 21:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I read it some time ago. It appears useful mostly for editors involved in arbitration. I wish Phroziac had read it, as his/her declararion: "Additionally, attempting to "game" the system or be a "wikilawyer" by reverting 3 times a day is a blockable offence also", which he/she incorrectly ascribes to me, has no correlation whatsoever to the actual Wikilawyer policy page.--AladdinSE 22:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You realize you're now rules lawyering with a page about rules lawyering, yes?--Sean Black|Talk 23:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Not in the least. Here is a curious todo. You cite a policy page in a discussion (your connection to which is beyond me), and you consider any discussion of said policy page, or an interpretation that might disagree with your own, to be wikilayering. Odd. --AladdinSE 00:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You are following the letter of the rules while violating the spirit, and you know it. You're trying to weasel your way out of it by claiming that you're not ruleslawyering because it doesn't say that what you're doing is ruleslawyering on the page! Don't you see the absurdity of that?--Sean Black|Talk 01:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This is getting stranger by the minute. Listen to yourself. You have just invented rules and guidelines not present in the page and claimed that if anyone disagrees with your interpretation by the simple recourse to policy pages (an integral part of user discussion found the length and breadth of Wikipedia), they are "violating the spirit" and wikilawyering. Absurd almost beyond belief. The policy page is very helpful about this. It applies mostly to arbitration cases. It gives a very good example, which bears no resemblance to the current discusison. You speak as if you haven't even read the link you inserted. If you believe in your own words, I suggest you start butting into all Wikipedia discussion pages anywhere where users disagree about rules, guidelines and interpretations, and then dare to quote or point to them. You'd have to accuse 99% of editors of Wikilawyering.--AladdinSE 02:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you seem to totally misunderstand what I'm talking about. You earned this block. That is all.--Sean Black|Talk 02:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you don't even understand what you're talking about. Whoever you are and however you connected yourself with this discussion, thanks for the analysis, however warped. --AladdinSE 02:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Khalid al-Azm

Nice job on that article. It's been on my own mental to-do list for a long-time now and I am pleased to see that I need no longer have it on my conscience. Palmiro | Talk 16:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm finally beginning to fulfill my original stated purpose of helping out on Levantine biographies. It's so easy to get distracted on Wikipedia! :-) --AladdinSE 08:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you think you're doing?

You've "reverted" my edit in Israel's unilateral disengagement plan#Israeli opinions. Who do you think yourself to be, that you can "revert" edits, basing solely on your lack of knowledge. If you want sources, you can go to my talk page and ask for them. Implying I'm lying is not assuming good faith...
Nevertheless, I porvided with sources for the info I've added - 5 links to two of themajor Israeli news websites. Enjoy reading.
If you have a problem with the "dodgy" grammar(what does that even mean?!), you're welcome to rephrase. English is not my first language, can't chnage that, sorry. DO NOT "revert" edits. DON'T DO THAT. If you don't know - ask. conio.h • talk 13:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You must be new. Contested or contentious information is often reverted and a source is requested by the reverting editor. That's what sources are primarily for. All editors have every right to do this, including yourself. We do not have to go to the user's "talk page" to request sources, we request sources in the article page itself. Requesting sources and contesting information is not the same as calling someone a liar. Moreover, your language and attitude here is inappropriate, I suggest you cool down. No one is out to "get you." As for "dodgy," that means tenuous, incorrect, etc, as I'm sure you guessed from the context. You really must be new, if you think you can march into anyone's Talk page and "order" them not to revert your edits. You'll learn eventually. And by the way, this is the English language Wikipedia, you may not use foreign language websites as sources. I will start a Talk section regarding this revert in the article Talk page, so that all editors can help resolve the dispute. Good luck and again, cool down. --AladdinSE 04:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Here, I started a Talk discussion so we can resolve this. Please enter your arguments and positions there. Thank you for visiting my Talk page. --AladdinSE 04:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I didn't want you to "spare" my edits. My suggestion was more general - I suggested you won't do those "reverts" at all, or at least not without proper explanation, and a way to resolve the problem. The grammar is "tenuous" because English is to be so much hard for I, and I guessed that tenuous is better than a far more "aggressive" version of the same things, esspecially considering that less "tenuous" phrasing would be surely POV(and the fact that I needed to translate it on my own)...
Indeed, you don't need to go to my talk page and request for sources. You could have done it on the article's talk page(as you HAVE done, finally...). It's a shame you didn't in the first place. It would have saved some space on your talk page... :)
Finally, when the rest of the English wikipedia will base solely on English sources, so will I. That is not the case, and I feel no need to be special. conio.h • talk 12:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I did give an explanation for my revert in my edit summary, shown here. This follows Wikipedia policy about edit summaries; allow me to quote:

"Even if short, an edit summary should strive to answer the question, "Why did you make this edit?"

"Proper use of edit summaries is critical to resolving content disputes. Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it could be controversial. If the edit involves reverting previous changes, it should be marked as a revert ("rv") in the edit summary. Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. Instead, place such comments, if required on the talk page. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself."

As you know, this was my first revert, and I filled out the edit summary succinctly. Right after your rather agitated objection, I started a Talk section, also in line with policy. Please see the Wikipedia:Citing sources about foreign-language sources in the English-language Wikipedia. I'm afraid that your reasoning cannot be used to utilize foreign-language sources in this manner. We cannot continue to violate policy simply because "others are doing it." Actually, citing foreign-language sources with no translation in the English-language Wikipedia is not common, and when it happens and the edit in question is contentious, it is not allowed to stand. If you come across any violations feel free to revert and require an English source, if you find the edit in question to be contentious. However, we are all obligated to follow the policy. As for the grammar content, I'm sorry that it is very hard for you. That is a difficulty inherent in attempting to edit an encyclopedia not in one's own native tongue. Nevertheless, other editors will be glad to correct your grammar etc, as long as we can have access to the source in English, so that we have the original text to compare against. If this was not a contested-information edit, we would not need a source, we could simply correct the grammar on-the-fly, as it were. Since it is contested, a verifiable source in English is essential. I will continue to participate in the article talk discussion regarding the actual disputed information. Please let us continue any discussion there.--AladdinSE 00:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Everything about the dispute I'll write there, but here's something you should think about:

---

Explain reverts

Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face—"I worked hard on those edits, and someone just rolled it all back". However, sometimes a revert is the best response to a less-than-great edit, so we can't just stop reverting. What's important is to let people know why you reverted. This helps the reverted person because they can remake their edit, but fixing whatever problem it is that you've identified.

Explaining reverts also helps other people. For example, it lets people know whether they need to even view the reverted version (in the case of, eg, "rv page blanking"). Because of the lack of paralanguage online, if you don't explain things clearly people will probably assume all kinds of nasty things, and that's one of the possible causes for edit wars.

If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in the edit summary, drop a note on the Talk page. A nice thing to do is to drop the note on the Talk page first, and then revert, rather than the other way round. Sometimes the other person will agree with you and revert for you before you have a chance. Conversely, if someone reverts your change without apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's talk page or your user talk page.

---

It's better to first talk - then revert. If you at first revert, it's still good to talk. You may revert without talking at all, but that just sucks. conio.h • talk 03:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's entirely unnecessary to quote policy to me that you know I have already clearly followed. I provided a clear explanation in my first revert edit summary, and when you objected, I immediately started a Talk discussion. I know that being new, reverts feel like a "slap in the face," but we all get used to them. --AladdinSE 03:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No more posts about this matter on my talk page will be allowed. Your last was deleted for repetitiveness and redundancy. You cannot formulate new Wikipedia policy on your own, or disregard existing ones. Not to mention that you are factually incorrect about what is "suggested" and "recommended." Explanations were given from the very first revert. If Talk discussions were started before every single revert is undertaken, nothing would ever get done on Wikipedia. The matter here is closed, only posts on the article talk page will be considered. --AladdinSE 05:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

UN charter

Hi AladdinSE, it's nice of you to watch those articles. Please consult with the following:

"Chapter VI establishes the appropriate methods of settling international disputes and the Security Council's powers in relation to them. It is generally agreed that resolutions under Chapter VI are advisory rather than binding. These resolutions have generally been operative only with the consent of all parties involved. Traditionally, the Chapter has not been interpreted to support collective intervention by member states in the affairs of another member state."[14]

"Under Chapter Six of the Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes", the Security Council "may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute". The Council may "recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment" if it determines that the situation might endanger international peace and security. These recommendations are not binding on UN members." United Nations Security Council#Role of the Security Council

... or with other refs and consider undoing your changes. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see Talk:UN Security Council Resolution 446. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just put in my 2 ¢ for the 446 resolution discussion. I think once we reach a consensus there, we can apply it to the other edits. --AladdinSE 06:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

your vote in need http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Image_Poll Qatarson 14:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:70.176.62.225

Thanks. I've taken care of it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Eras

If you're going to go round changing era names on spurious grounds, at least get it right! Change [[10 BC]] to [[10 BCE]] not [[10]] BCE which mistakenly links to a date twenty years later. And CE goes after the date, not before like AD, so AD [[44]] must be changed to [[44]] CE. But really, it would be better not to edit-war over this. Gdr 11:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

They are not spurious grounds. I began to change "Anno Domini" to "Common Era" etc when I noticed it was being done routinely on all sorts of articles, and I agreed with the reasoning. "In the Year of our Lord" and "Before Christ" are overtly Christian and religious and "Common Era" designations are neutral. Moreover, I find your post here on my Talk page to be straange. Why couldn't you say your peace in the actual article Talk section I started deliberately to discuss this matter? What's more, why did you not explain your reason for reverting in the first place? As for changing 10 BC to 10 BCE not 10 BCE that is a typo you could have fixed yourself, without reverting. Since you did not, I will fix it myself. --AladdinSE 16:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

OpenIslampedia

Salams/Greetings,

As a member of the Wikipedia community who has contributed to articles related to Islam, I thought you might be interested in a project I am trying to get going: OpenIslampedia. Please visit the site for more information.

While it is permissible to re-use content from Wikipedia (as long as it is cited appropriately and released under their GNU Free Documentation License), it is my hope that we will be able to develop new content for OpenIslampedia, more in accordance to the needs and desires of our community and audience.

Interested? Please consider joining us! As you probably know from working in Wikipedia, every contribution counts, no matter how small.

Ulises Ali Mejias

Hamas ArbCom case

FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Hamas Zeq 19:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: The above link does not contain any procedural record because the Request for Arbitration by Zeq was denied unanimously by the ArbCom, and never made it to deliberation. However, an edit history 'diff' record can be found here. Furthermore Zeq was himself censured for disruption, edit warring and unjustified deletion of duly cited material. He was banned indefinitely from two articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict and placed on Probation. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq --AladdinSE 12:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

American Israel Public Affairs Committee

I am letting you know that I have asked User:Zero0000 to help resolve the conflict over the American Israel Public Affairs Committee article since I don't think either one of us are going to bend, I have informed zero that I will consider the matter resolved regardless of his decision and I was curious if you will as well, I purposely picked an admin that we both could consider more or less neutral. Please respond on my talk page, Thank you.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I prefer to respond to questions and comments placed on my talk page on my Talk page, because it can get extremely confusing and hard to follow when questions and answers and posts and retorts are conducted on two different pages. The short answer is to your question is no. What you are looking for here, I gather, is Arbitration, and you've jumped the Dispute Resolution gun, as it were. There are other steps before that. You don't just pick an admin and ask them to "rule" on the matter. Some useful procedure is to Request a comment and ask for mediation. Also, despite your repeated mistaken interpretation of the 3RR, no policy violations have taken place, and this remains a content dispute, I'm not sure how admins can be drawn into this. However, they may certainly shed light on the disagreement, and add their opinion, as can any other editor. --AladdinSE 09:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I did not want to make anything formal. My wish was to informally have a neutral party help to resolve the issue before anything even more unpleasent takes place. Due to the fact that neither of us are likely to give in to the other, and already it seems the conflict has been reduced to an edit war it seems that my idea is quite rational at this point.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Having third parties join a content dispute is nothing new on Wikipedia. The FRC process was designed for precisely this reason, and is actually a useful noticeboard so that as many editors as possible can see which articles contain edit wars or other impasses.--AladdinSE 08:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea sorry I got sidetracked with the wikiquote, this time I'll only remove it aftre I figure evrything out

.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I figured it out, it is linked under external links section, the quotes are exactly as they appeared before.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I finally got off my rear end and did some research about Wikiquotes. Since WikiQuotes is part of WikiMedia, it is not usually listed as a URL under "External Links." To link to Wikiquotes, a hyper-linked "Wikiquote" graphic is placed somewhere in the article body itself. I just put it in. I'm glad you decided to stop censoring Findley's remarks, by the way. --AladdinSE 10:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If you didn't notice, I was trying to adobt a concilitory attitude, and I was hoping you would as well, as such I find that last comment incredibly rude and disrespectful, It is obvious I never saw it as "censoring" I felt it didn't belong there and I still don't.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It was censorship from first to last. If I had wanted to be difficult I would not have helped with the Wikiquote process. You have a flare for hyperbole, and have thrown around accusations like "rude and disrespectful" more than once, while at the same time telling me to "get over it", if I recall correctly. Also, I have made my own gestures of friendliness, such as defending you from personal attacks in other articles during the height of our disagreement. Nevertheless, as the Findley quotation has been preserved, consider me thoroughly conciliated. --AladdinSE 10:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Michel Aoun

I've been watching the article and will continue to. If it's necessary, you can request the page be protected. Post there, or message me if I can help. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I was going to post an RFC but if that avalanche of POV insertions continue, I will definitely look into requesting protection. --AladdinSE 15:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have asked Fares S to not edit your userpage; I see Michel Aoun has been protected. Maybe now some useful discussion can take place on the article talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, are these edits by another anon editor vandalism? I'd leave him a warning, but I don't understand what he has done. Was his changing the names an intentional provocation? Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was in intentional provocation. He/she was trying to 'show my incompetence' as it were. The name changes on my User page do not conform to the actual article names or links. This IP also made a clear set of Vandalism edits here.--AladdinSE 15:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Please comment on my rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 21:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

s-protected

I've s-protected your user page as you asked. I'm sorry it became necessary. Best regards, Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Fares S

I'm thinking of blocking User:Fares S for vandalism, POV inputs and personal attacks. What do you think? CG 20:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Another thing: User:Lebanese Historian has created Michel Aoun - A Lebanese Perspective. What do you think about it? CG 21:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As long as Fares S is clearly warned that continuing in this manner will warrant a block, I can see no other way of stopping the torrent of POV and vandalism abuses. In addition to repeatedly vandalizing my own User Page [15] [16] [17] (that last edit was made even after an admin warned him to stop), he continues to censor [18] [19] [20] comments and warnings, including image copyright issues, from his Talk page. He ignores requests for citation for POV edits that he continually reverts. See Walid Jumblat.

That bold-faced POV Fork article on Michel Aoun will be deleted, there's no question. I just voted and there is universal consensus. Hopefully after User:Lebanese Historian has been here a while, he/she will learn that behavior like this, namely creating pov forks when POV-ing an existing article fails, will not be tolerated. --AladdinSE 22:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If Fares S would moderate his behavior and work with the other editors, I would welcome his contributions. Clearly he is knowledgable, but at this point he seems to be here only to promote a particular point of view. It might be useful to open an RfC, or post something on the notice board, to get input from uninvolved editors. If someone with no involvement with the article tells him he is doing more harm than good, maybe he will listen. If he persists in edit warring and harrassing people he disagrees with, I support blocking him. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia lacks of Lebanese contributors, I would like to consider them as contributors only if they moderate they behaviors and start to follow Wikipedia policies. CG 08:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User templates

Thank you for you comment. You can find more userboxes at WP:UBX. CG 08:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)