User talk:Aminz/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My Question: (was replied) I am blocked. A policy says: "If you disagree with a block, begin by discussing it with the blocking admin." So, I disagree with the block and am asking the diffs for my personal attacks. What should I do when Cyde, the admin who blocked me, doesn't post anything here? (See the section here please [1]) Thanks --Aminz 04:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Instead of using {{helpme}} you should use {{unblock|a very good reason}}. It may be better for your Wikipedia experience, however, to simply use this as an opportunity to take a break from Wikipedia. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kylu, But in my block history, it will be recorded that I have made personal attacks. It's all that otherwise I don't have any problem with taking a break from wikipedia. Thanks so much for helping me anyways. Regards, --Aminz 04:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

My Question: I am blocked. A policy says: "If you disagree with a block, begin by discussing it with the blocking admin." So, I disagree with the block and am asking the diffs for my alledged personal attacks. I've added the unblock template. Cyde's edit history shows that he has got my first requests for the diffs of my alledged actions. What should I do when Cyde, the admin who blocked me, doesn't post anything here? (See the section here please [2] & the follwing unblock template). I just want to know which of my edits were personal attacks, I don't think it is a lot. Especially when Cyde stated "I strongly urge that you do not continue this pattern of editing once your block expires". Thanks--Aminz 05:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

{unblock|Please provide diffs for my alledged personal attacks and disruption. See here for further details. Thanks.}

can you give me more details? Kimchi.sg 13:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Harrassment and personal attacks by Aminz??? Preposterous! I'll believe it when I see it. Diffs?

Until then, I'll inclined to believe that someone has confused him with another recently-blocked editor. It's true that he's been friendly and helpful to some whose conduct hasn't earned it, but that doesn't mean he deserves to be punished for their behavior.Timothy Usher 06:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I have made no personal attacks or disruption, God knows. I had objections to InShaneee's block of Zereshk. I mainly claimed that the block was too long and furthermore the steps required for an admin to pass until a user gets block is not taken by InShaneee. I was outspoken in what I believe was justice. This block is only meant to quite me. But Cyde had to justify it somehow, so he accused me of Harrassment and personal attacks and disruption. But thanks for your trust in me, my friend. --Aminz 06:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Eagle 101, I'm sorry but I am blocked. I can not edit the page you mentioned. My question is posted above (it is bolded). Can you please post it for me. Thanks --Aminz 06:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Eagle 101 isn't on IRC any longer and isn't going to hear your message. I have tried to contact Cyde as he is logged in to a number of Wikipedia related IRC channels, but I haven't gotten a response yet. Being away from the computer is a high probability as Cyde runs a number of bots and doesn't often log off. I have removed the helpme as it isn't going to get you results any quicker. Please email Cyde if you have a question about the block.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 06:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks WAvegetarian. Emailing Cyde is useless. He has already seen my request, this I know (timings show this). But I can't see why he doesn't want to reply back to me. --Aminz 06:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Actually 2 New Dhimmi editor 3 Opinion vs. fact 4 I'm sorry 5 Let's Cool Down 6 Maimonides and other stuff - to do list 7 Your Arbcomm entry 8 Getting out of hand. 9 HEY 10 maghale sooe tafahom darbare iran 11 You are Welcome 12 Please remain civil 13 رای گیری برای حذف پروژه شیعه 14 Your noticeboard 15 Another bit of scripture you might like 16 Greetings 17 Blocked 18 Blocked 19 An honest deal 20 Personal attack 21 Please vote 22 my reply to Cyde's comment on his talk page 23 Welcome back to Zora 24 Well, if you're going to beg.... 25 You getting blocked 26 Spamming

[edit] Actually

That would be a good article should there be an article comparing Baptists with other Christian groups, which is what Shi'a and Islam is doing. Can you think of a better title for a page comparing a subset of a religion with a superset of a religion? Trick is, it can't have "Misconceptions" in the title. I think the new article title is more than appropriate. Regards, - FrancisTyers · 22:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey man, thanks for your considered note :) I still have reservations about the name, but I think that it could be better at something like Views on Shi'a Islam? Basically if we follow WP:NPOV, we can't just have "Negative" or "Positive" in an article, we have to have both, to present both sides of the story. Would you prefer this new title, I think it allays both of our concerns. - FrancisTyers · 01:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, thanks again for your suggestions :) (I've accidentally clicked on your joke twice now) :) - FrancisTyers · 01:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Dhimmi editor

Hey Aminz. I was wondering whether/how you think we should welcome new contributors to the article? (You reverted text. I googled for Maimonides and conversion and Islam and it is all terribly controversial and complex and I don't have any academic refs yet.) Itsmejudith 12:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Im Levito. Im not sure as to which academic sources i could find due to the nature of the fallacy itself. I'll explain. The entire story of Maimonides converting to Islam was first spread by one of his enemies, who was a physician in morrocco i think. This physician wasnt very skilled and Maimonides exposed him as such which pretty much ended his career. This man invented the slander in question against Maimonides, however no one at the time took him seriously. The next link in the chain is the historian Graetz. I guarantee you that the historian that was referenced on the dhimmi page was only quoting Graetz's "History of the Jews". Graetz is the one who reintroduced this slander and because of his "respectability" within academic circles has led many other scholars to perpetuate this falsehood unwittingly. Graetz is the only other source for this slander, and it stems from his own mentor's virulent hatred of both Judah the Prince and Maimonides, who in his view were responsible for cementing judaism into clear cut laws and philosophies as opposed to allowing individual autonomy and liberty within observance and belief. As the forerunners of the "reform" movement these men had many personal reasons to attack the character and qualities of numerous individuals who would represent the traditional jewish way of thought which is that judaism is a divine religion and not one made by men. The hatred that the "maskilim" or members of the jewish enlightenment, and later the reformers, had for traditional judaism is well known and documented in their numerous attempts in germany to stamp traditional judaism out, even manipulating the secular german government whenever possible into aiding them. Ill be honest that i think it will be difficult to find hard core sources to support me, but on the other hand no one will find any source for the other side that isnt Graetz, or isnt referencing Graetz exclusively.

It would make me happy if you let my changes stand, but if we need more proof then ill see what i can do but i cant promise it will be soon.

Thank you for letting me know that you changed it, and for being so cordial about the whole thing, im a bit new to this and im happy i didnt cause any offense with my edit. Talk to you later.

oh and the Maimonides article you referred me to is pretty good except for the modern thing at the end. um i'm not getting involved there cause its just too much hassle and a general waste of time to try and talk sense into people that have a vested interest in believing something contrary to the truth.

[edit] Opinion vs. fact

This edit is but the latest example of your failure to distiguish between facts and opinions. That the Qur'an does not demand the earthly penalty for apostasy and that only the Shafi'is interpret Sura 2:214 as requiring to execute the apostates is a fact, not opinion; attributing this fact to Heffening makes no sense. It's disruptive to try and bring every single article that you edit must be reduced to the Criticism of Islam standard: Criticism of Islam is a collection of opinions by definition. I'm not going to level against you your favorite charges of selective quotation and misrepresentation (you've chosen to write that the Qur'an does not demand punishment for apostasy, but failed to write about the hadith, which do demand death penalty); I'm just noting your editing pattern. Pecher ^Talk 20:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for letting me know about that one scholar whom I couldn't read(the fonts were completely messed up). Secondly, I said, "Heffening states X" not that "Heffening believes X". A scholar can state a fact. The reader will accept it as a fact if there are no other quotes made there. Now, as to your claim of "my selective quotation and misrepresentation", please have a look at the original article written by Heffening. I honestly summerized one whole long paragraph within its context. Heffening doesn't mention that Hadith there and that was why I didn't mention that Hadith in my summary. Also, I will be more than happy to learn about my editing failures and correct myself if I feel there is something wrong. --Aminz 21:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's pointless to attribute a fact to someone; only opinions may be attributed. Otherwise, the whole Wikipedia would read like "A says X" and would be everyone's laughing stock. Secondly, Heffening does write about the hadith, right in the paragraph after the Qur'an. Sorry, at this point, it's hard to believe that you've said it good faith given the fact that you attempted to post the whole article from the Encyclopaedia of Islam on the article's talk page. Pecher ^Talk 21:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And my question is that how do you know if something is "a fact" or "only opinions"? Especially could you please explain how "Muhammad moved to attack Khaybar in order to raise his prestige among his followers, as well as to capture booty to sustain subsequent conquests." is a fact and not an opinion.

Secondly, I attempted to post the whole article from the Encyclopaedia of Islam on the article's talk page so that editors who have time may use it as a source for the article. Had I wanted to misrepresent the source, I wouldn't have posted the whole article on the talk page.

Thirdly, please note that I was editing the intro. I didn't mention any of the Qur'anic verse (to show they don't prescribe it) as well. Rather I just mentioned that they don't prescribe death penalty. I also added that Hadiths don't have the elements of the hereafter punishment and instead we have death punishment. The article already said that all five schools prescribe death penalty. There was a gap explaining why there are some who don't believe so and this gap was filled with the paragraph I added.

Fourthly, you are welcome to summarize the first and second paragraph again (by for example adding a couple of Qur'anic verses and also the Hadiths or however you feel is better). --Aminz 21:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A fact is something people agree on; an opinion is something people do not agree on. No one seriously disputes what only the Shafiis deduce from the Qur'an a death penalty for aposatsy; no one seriously disputes that Muhammad's followers were diappointed at the Hudaybiyya fiasco and Muhammad needed a victory to regain authority; thus, these are facts. Pecher ^Talk 19:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree, "A fact is something people agree on; an opinion is something people do not agree on."; The question then is that how do we know all people agree on something. It is common sense to me that once one scholar says "the Shafiis deduce from the Qur'an a death penalty for apostasy" it is a fact; however whether "only" they have such an opinion can be true or not (based on the knowledge of the author, the time he is living, etc. ) so, I go for saying "X says only Shafiis deduce from Qur'an such things..."

And it is a common sense that "some of the Muhammad's followers were disappointed at the Hudaybiyya", but whether "Muhammad needed a victory to regain authority" is a fact or not needs proof. Muir, I think, says that Muhammad gave promise to some of the Bedouins for a victory and he conquered Khaybar to have his prediction fulfilled. I am "sure" Muslim scholars dispute that Muhammad attacked Khaybar precisely for 1. in order to raise his prestige among his followers 2. to capture booty to sustain subsequent conquests. Such kinds of simplifications of events are the very nature of theories proposed by scholars and they well know that they are dealing with theories in the first place and not with facts. Facts are with God alone :P --Aminz 22:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm sorry

I'm sorry. Mano bebakhsh lotfan! :-) Also I fell for that "Practical joke" of yours on top of the page twice in a row! I'm going crazy! --(Aytakin) | Talk 03:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Buddy its all good, I wasn't offended by it. I do admit my tone was a bit angry, but i don't like people editing my talk page. Any how, keep of the good work and lets hope this whole problem will soon go away! --(Aytakin) | Talk 03:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's Cool Down

Hi, you seem like a resonable person so I think that both of us should stop our discussion on InShaneee's page at least for the time being before it becomes too heated. I have no problem with you at all and apologize if I in anyway gave off that image. Anyway, lets wait at least until the afd is over to continue discussion. See you around and happy editing.--Jersey Devil 04:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maimonides and other stuff - to do list

Levito, if you read this, get yourself a user page and then people can leave messages directly for you there. The page on Graetz confirms (but without references) that he was not a very reliable historian. And I see from Amazon that there are some biographies of Maimonides, but they are not universally acclaimed either. Amazing given that he was such an important figure in the middle ages, for Jews, Christians and Muslims in particular and learning and posterity in general.

Aminz, I reckon the Dhimmi article needs a to-do list. Starting with bringing in a greater range of academic sources. Restructuring. Etc. What do you think?Itsmejudith 13:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Itsmejudith, That's a very good idea. Unfortunately I have not already finished reading the Lewis book! But I think I can read two books simultaneously. Cheers--Aminz 19:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Arbcomm entry

It's not just Muslims who see Timothy Usher for what he is..Netscott's levied the same accusation against him after seeing him defend FNB's image of a pig with "Allah" written on it. People have noted the hatred in his rhetoric and his edits. Faisal, BhaiSaab, Netscott, and several others. I've noticed his sweet words in discussion with you, but aside from that, he's never been civil with a Muslim here. His editing on Islam-related topics demonstrate a single driven POV. I don't want to say much, least I get into trouble. I do find your defense of Timothy Usher despite all the evidence that points to his objectives here, troubling. His Excellency... 14:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you please give me more details about "FNB's image of a pig with "Allah""? Thanks --Aminz 19:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Read through my evidences on Timothy Usher on the Arbcomm case. Please don't type on my talk page. I dislike you, and I don't want to find myself making a personal attack. His Excellency... 14:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getting out of hand.

This thing is really getting out of hand. Users are editing other people's talk pages, people fighting, Zereshk is suspended, InShanee is blaming me for this [3]. Do you think we should get the Arbitration people involved? Plus I'm going on a trip tomorrow so you guys will have one less person, but i'll check back before I leave and try to help on my trip. khodahafez--(Aytakin) | Talk 21:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I am not quitting WP, since that is exactly what some of the people involved in the recent incident exactly want(ed). The more they gang up on me, the more my point comes across to everyone. There are lots of people following this incident. Administrative abuse is not a light issue.--Zereshk 02:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk, I prefer not to call this "Administrative abuse"?! It was not abuse. Not the term abuse but something else. I don't know what it was. BUT it was bad. It was injustice! --Aminz 02:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HEY

haha I know! Man your talk page is fun, I really wanted to vandalise the page with the link on the top and I again fell for the new message joke. I'm losing my mind or something. By the way, tomorrow I'm going to Iran! --(Aytakin) | Talk 03:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] maghale sooe tafahom darbare iran

agar mikhahid vaghan maghale ra hefz konid , lotfan an ra eslah konid. hamantor ke be zareshl ghablan goftam alan in maghale khoob nist. behtare taghyyrati dar an bedahid.

[4]

and [5]

Good buy. --Sa.vakilian 11:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical question not directly referring to a particular user...Ask yourself: "What would a bigot do?" Try to influence the views of readers by selectively collecting the most damning pieces of facts? Edit war and argue to exclude any less POV-biased sources or views? Engage the targets of his bigotry, preferably with the assistance of fellow bigots, to vocally and openly demean them personally and ridicule their religion? What would a bigot do? And what have they done and what have they been doing? I've apologised for what I said earlier about you, but I haven't changed my mind in that I'd prefer that you not respond on my talk page. His Excellency... 15:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, you're right. Discussing the matter (related to the artticle: Misconceptions about Iran) beforhand is better. Thanks for the message. --Mani1 10:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are Welcome

You are most welcome. Its not easy some time to share time and efforts to produced a good informative artical or just improve its context. I noticed your skills and I hope you will keep doing it. After all, we are all here to provide some information to the world. Take care phippi46 14:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please remain civil

Allegation of anti-Semitics to a decent user such as Itsmejudith is a personal attack and is inappropriate. "Please" don’t do it again. Thanks in advance for your consideration of my friendly reminder. --Aminz 22:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Since I never did it in the first place, I'll take your "friendly" reminder as a baseless accusation against me. Please refrain from such accusations in the future --Leifern 22:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If you never did it in the first place, I appologize for my comment. --Aminz 23:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking this up. I had notified netscott but will now tell him of the retraction. Itsmejudith 09:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] رای گیری برای حذف پروژه شیعه

سلام

الان یک رای گیری در خصوص حذف پروژه شیعه [6] در حال برگزاری است [7] لطفا در اولین فرصت بیا رای بده.--Sa.vakilian 05:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your noticeboard

Hi, you've put your noticeboard into the article space where it doesn't belong. I've moved it to Wikipedia project space.

• Wikipedia:Iran,shiite and middle east related articles noticeboard/Incidents

--Tony Sidaway 07:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I just recieved your comment, Tony is correct for future reference you should never put Wikipedia-related stuff in the mainspace. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 10:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another bit of scripture you might like

The great Way is easy, yet people prefer the side paths. Be aware when things are out of balance. Stay centred within the Tao.

Tao Te Ching verse 53 (Stephen Mitchell translation)

Itsmejudith 09:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Taoism will give you links, but there is also a western Taoism website that I love and found through googling but I don't think is currently linked. Taoism does not use stories but Zen Buddhism, which incorporated much of Taoism, does. I find parallels between Zen stories, which are full of paradox and try to unsettle fixed ways of seeing, and Jesus's parables. (If you read the parables directly without the layers of interpretation put on over years of official religion.)

“When they lose their sense of awe,

people turn to religion.

When they no longer trust themselves,

they begin to depend upon authority.

Therefore the Master steps back

so that people won’t be confused.

He teaches without a teaching,

so that people will have nothing to learn.”

Tao Te Ching verse 72

Itsmejudith 10:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Website is www.westernreformtaoism.org. Itsmejudith 13:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Smile2Itsmejudith 21:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

I dunno if your iranian or not, and i also dunno if your one of the users who didn't take Inshaneee's reverts very well. But it seems you posted alot regarding this issue, mostly in the incidents page. I think it is for the best that we do let this matter go, he did his job and can't be blamed for that, i am sure you agree. Khoda hafez, --Spahbod ☼ 00:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I'm persian. Sure, I'll try to let it go gradually. --Aminz 02:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked you for 5 minutes for reverting to the personal attacks on Zeresh's User page. I have also protected the page to prevent you, or anyone else, from reverting to the attacks. Attack pages are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and specifically reverting to one is a serious offense. Next time it will be for more than 5 minutes. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, please indicate on your user page that you are an admin. Next, I am standing for justice. I promise that you have not had even reviewed the case closely yourself. Please block for a week if it is not so. --Aminz 02:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to review the history. I only need to look at the User page, which is clearly an attack page. If Zeresh were really serious about doing something about the situation, he would have created an RfC, but that would have required actually doing something besides making personal attacks. I am coming at this from a completely impartial viewpoint -- I am only interested in removing the attack page. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings to you. I also came from a completely impartial viewpoint. But I was burnt by the intensity of the penalty InShaneee imposed on Zereshk (and how soon he did so). Why do you think Zereshk's user page is a personal attack. He is only writing what has happened to him. Where is the freedom of speech then? --Aminz 02:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, what if I want to give Zereshk a barnstar? I can't edit his userpage?????? --Aminz 02:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for personal attacks, harrassment, and disruption. I strongly urge that you do not continue this pattern of editing once your block expires. --Cyde↔Weys 03:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you please kindly show me my personal attacks (for example). Thanks in advance --Aminz 03:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, personal attack is defined as:

"Blocks may be imposed in instances where threats have been made or actions performed (including actions outside the Wikipedia site) which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. In such a case a block of any length of time, including indefinite, may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery."

I am now even more interested to see the diffs. --Aminz 04:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And we have a list of examples of personal attacks here : [8]. Would you please let me know my alleged personal attacks are close to which item in the list.Thanks --Aminz 04:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Got this policy. "If you disagree with a block, begin by discussing it with the blocking admin."

I disagree with the block and am asking the diffs for my personal attacks.Thanks --Aminz 04:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An honest deal

Here is my suggestion: InShaneee honestly and on his own choice asks another admin to look closely into his block of Zereshk and hears my arguments. If that admin ended up with the decision that InShaneee was completely right, I am willing to get blocked for a week or even longer. How is that? Fair, Isn't it? --Aminz 03:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, as I am blocked, can you please communicate my message to InShaneee.Thanks --Aminz 03:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack

InShaneee, I would like to report a 'personal attack' to me which happened right now ([9]) (I call it incivility but I think you consider it as a personal attack) Please note that I've never had much encounter with Mike18xx before. Pecher attacked me in the same way today. Please see my recent post on the Pecher's talk page. Thanks --Aminz 04:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please vote

Salam

yak maghale POV alayhe ma neveshte and. Lotfan baraye hazfe an ray bede va be bagheye ham begoo ray bedahand.[10]--Sa.vakilian 15:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Sa.vakilian, can I please, please ask you to post your public comments on Wikipedia:Iran,shiite and middle east related articles noticeboard/Incidents. Spamming is against the wiki policy. If you don't wish to follow it, may I beg you not to post your message at least on my personal talk page. I really get disturbed by that. Thanks you so much in advance for your considerations. --Aminz 18:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my reply to Cyde's comment on his talk page

Cyde wrote on his talk page: Aminz and Zereshk have been on a harrassing and annoying campaign against InShanee for awhile now because InShanee dared to step into some silly cultural conflict and Zereshk basically responded with, "You have no right to tell us anything about this, it's not your cultur, you won't understand." This has been going on for quite some time with disruptive threads on ANI and veiled insults all over the wiki. And now that Aminz is being blocked I just see him repeatedly Wikilawyering. All of this harrassment and campaigning against admins needs to stop; he can't weasel his way out of it.

My discussion with InShaneee didn't have "any" cultural conflict. My main claim was that InShaneee's block of Zereshk was too long and furthermore the steps required for an admin to pass until a user gets block is not taken by InShaneee. ([11]) Also, InShaneee's block was not in the direction of solving the spamming problem (I, on the other hand, created Wikipedia:Iran,shiite and middle east related articles noticeboard/Incidents as supposedly a solution to spamming problem). I believe unless we address the motivations, the problems will not be solved at the surface with long blocking.

See, I even myself considered some of Zereshk's comments as uncivil and you can find this on both Zereshk's or InShaneee's talk page ([12]). I even "reasoned" that Zereshk was spamming when he was denying it.[13]. User: Future Perfect at Sunrise thanked me for my "efforts for fairness on all sides" ([14]). I supported Jersey Devil who reported Zereshk for his spamming in his Adminship RfA. Cyde, I am telling the truth. I never made any personal attacks, or disruption. Harassment, well, if you consider criticizing one's behavior as harassing, I did criticize but I always remained civil. I don't really know the policies on Harassing but I've never intended to do one. I don't think arguing against one's behavior is defined as "campaigning". InShaneee is a human like all of us. I don't believe anybody (including myself) to be fault-less; but also on the other hand, one's fault in one case doesn't mean that he is so in main. I never intended such generalization and sometimes made it clear (if implicitly). --Aminz 19:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. my email is now activated. --Aminz 19:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Thanks so much Bishonen for your positive view of me. --Aminz 19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I request you to provide the diffs for your three different allegations of me (well now four). I don't think I am asking a lot. Furthermore, if you think some of my comments were personal attacks, etc (which I don't think), please let me know why you didn't post any warning messages to me first before the block. --Aminz 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, My block will finish in around 7 hours, it is almost done; but I'm sure you will answer to my questions somewhere and sometime in the future. --Aminz 20:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back to Zora

I'd like to say ***welcome you back*** to Zora from here ! I'll promise on the behalf of Timothy Usher, that he will be nicer to you! What do you think Timothy? :P Zora, I'll send the email I was supposed to send very soon! (I was over-active with wikipedia these days ) Regards, --Aminz 00:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Noticed your new defence commentary on Timothy Usher. I find your protecting him inexplicable. He incidentally happens to be particularly interested in that bit of the Aisha article that speaks on her being 6 at marriage. He incidentally supports FNB's freedom of speech rights when FNB posts a picture on his user page, of a pig with "Allah" superimposed on it in Arabic. He happens to edit Musaylimah to point out that he's a false prophet, just like Muhammad. Other than you, every other communication he's had with a Muslim had been in a form of an attack, either directly or through references to denegrating Islam and Muhammad. I can't make any interpretations of your behavior without violating some bloated or twisted form of some WP policy for another, so I won't. I would think it a terrible idea that a barnstar or two and some flattering words would be all it took to make a person acquience to hate speech. His Excellency... 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

H.E., please let me go through your evidences. I haven't read your comments to this detail but I will and I'm always open to change my mind 100%. Also, FYI, I have told Zereshk about this ArbCom. I've asked him to inform all other related editors here. Surely Zereshk doesn't have a good view towards Timothy Usher, and I did it intentionally and in fairness since you were thinking I am not a good sample here. I didn't want to be responsible for it, so I informed Zereshk. Everyone should speak up. Your point that the way Timothy talks about Muhammad is sometimes offensive to Muslims is a valid point, it was the same to me, and we had discussions over it through email. He claims that he does so not only for Muhammad but also for Jesus and other people. He told me some jokes... I didn't find it to be his specific attitude towards Muhammad. You may think I am doing a mistake. Maybe. I am not free from it. But my responsibility is to decide based on whatever I have seen. --Aminz 16:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, re the Aisha age, I am more inclined to accept she was married at 6 but stayed in her parents' home till she had reached puberty (at 9 or maybe 10 according to Ibn Hisham). Aisha reached pubetry early and this is stressed by all her accounts (Spellberg points out). So, there is absolutely nothing wrong with her marriage at age 6. And this not only my own view, but the view of the dominant majority of Muslims. Now indictment of Muhammad based on this just shows rank of ignorance (to my mind of course) and I don't think Timothy has done so. If he has, I can argue with him and convince him but I don't think he has done so in the first place. I need to check your other evidences... --Aminz 16:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Even I will say that anyone marrying a 6 yr old is a pedophile. Anyone having sex with a 9 or 10 year old is also pedophilia. Timothy knows that, and it's with that knowlege he edits the article to emphasize that aspect of Aisha's life. The majority of Muslims aren't even aware of the Hadith that makes that claim, much less the long dispute over the authenticity of that claim and the opposing views on that. Timothy Usher made it quite clear he believes Muhammad is a murderer. "Muhammad himself violated a woman named Safiyah after torturing her husband and beheading him" [15] "Muhammad would be considered a war criminal - executing POW's, ransoming others, poisoning wells with dead bodies, etc." Does it take an ounce of intelligence to see what tilt his arguements aim to support? In "Criticism of Islam" you justified the existence of the article by saying "I am a Muslim and support the existence of this article for I believe it is constructive." An article that is larger than WP policy would suggest as a normal size, documenting and analyzing every single claim against Muhammad that can be vocalized. Fixing the POV in that article becomes a difficult task when a person who calls himself a Muslim uses the "I am Muslim and I endorse this article" line, despite criticism of the article's POV by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. You've brought the same hurdle to Arbcomm now, defending someone whom most objective readers see as indefensible because of the obvious bias in his works. And sorry, but I don't buy it that you are unaware of Usher's edit history, you're as well-acquainted with him as I am...just as I don't buy your ignorance plea when Dhimmi was stating as a matter of fact, that the Muslim marriage amounted to slavery. His Excellency... 17:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Starting from the end; Man, Why don't you buy my "ignorance plea when Dhimmi was stating as a matter of fact". If you have a look at my edits to Dhimmi article, you'll realize that I have been working on the article from the top sections (because they are read first) and the Shia ritual purity section (which I was more familar with and was picked up first). Just check it. I am going to make a claim and I'm sure you'll not accept it from me: See this edit of mine [16]. There was a dispute between Pecher and Itsmejudith on the section of "Places of worship" & other passages. Now, do believe me if I claim I haven't read this very section closely? I have read the first paragraph closely and have an idea of what's going on there, but just an idea.

Now, I should say I remember once Faisal and Timothy were discussing marriage somewhere and sometime. Faisal believed husband should be Muslim since the children go for the religion of husband. This, I remember. But still you are willing to accept that I am a liar as you have evidences of that. --Aminz 19:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You've been editing this article for a month. You're telling me you've been editing it for a month but you never read it? The same content has been disputed in the talk page time and time again with Muslims taking strong opposition to the inclusion of the notion that Muslim marriages are relations between slave-owner and slave. Faisal was arguing precisely over the content I later argued about. You do all this in-depth research, it doesn't make sense to me that you'd be oblivious to the content of the articles you work on. From your earlier request for info on Timothy Usher's support of the pig image, it's apparent you intend to claim you don't know of Usher's antics either. Read through the evidence I posted on the Arbcomm page, on Timothy Usher. Read through the pages you've been editing for so long. I won't pretend to give you the benefit of the doubt. And please do not use "I am a Muslim" to express your endorsement of things you haven't even read, things written by hate mongers to defame Islam and insult Muslims, just because they were written by your friends. His Excellency... 20:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

For a month!!!! Did you know that I was editing (well, never succeeded to insert more than a sentence into this article till recently) this article long time ago. I, together with Farhansher & Pecher were involved in an unsuccessful mediation over this article. I then left, then Faisal came instead of me. I was little active when Faisal was there. And he left when I came back. Funny Huh?! H.E., do you want me to show you a diff from the very past (when you were not here but I was involved in this article for 'awhile'), expressing the same thing that I have only read parts of the article?? The same situation. It is painful to find it; I have a vague memory of it; but I'll do it though "doubt" you'll ever believe me. --Aminz 20:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Per your comment, sure, I'll never use the phrase "I am a Muslim" in cases you are/maybe/was/will involved. --Aminz 20:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

H.E., please give me time. I still have to respond back to you on many points on your last comment. Thanks --Aminz 20:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Here is one link([17]): "It is not on my current agenda to defend the Farhansher’s version. I have not even read the Farhansher’s version once; however I will be willing to help people considering that version in an NPOV manner"

Background: there was a dispute between two versions of the article dhimmi. I was blocked because of passing 3RR by reverting Pecher's version to Farhansher's version before making that very comment. yet, "I have not even read the Farhansher’s version once;" and never did it actually. The mediation was on for about a month. --Aminz 20:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well, if you're going to beg....

I was going to hold out until you made me a chocolate cake, but I suppose begging will suffice. JDoorjam Talk 08:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You getting blocked

I'm amazed and will try to work out what happened. Also about a certain comment made by a certain user on talk:dhimmi. Don't let it get to you. Itsmejudith 09:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

OK I won't spend time on the blocking thing but I might do about the Dhimmi talk page. Join Esperanza and meet some nice people. There are stressbuster ideas and if you post under reach out people will respond. It is hard to believe it's the same wikipedia. Itsmejudith 10:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Aminz good to see you are around now. Look at Tony Sidaway's talk page as he has taken some action on an issue that touches your case. All the best. Itsmejudith 21:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming

I see you're now spamming to drum up support for a retaliatory policy change. Number one, it's already been suggested and shot down a dozen times, and number two, don't spam. You really, really know better, so consider this your only warning. --InShaneee 22:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Spamming? Diffs please... My english is not good. Could you also please explain "consider this your only warning" means this is only a warning or this is the only warning I've given, or this is the last warning. Thanks. --Aminz 22:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Above is one diff, and you copy/pasted that exact same message about your proposal to another page, as well. "Only warning" here means that this is your first and last warning about this. --InShaneee 23:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee, I am trying to find a group of people interested to work on the project of 'working on policies'? Please let me know what is wrong with that? There is no RfA, RfD, etc etc here. --Aminz 23:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Spamming is spamming, which I hope you'll pick up on sooner rather than later. You should just stop looking for loopholes now; there aren't any. And yes, there is a place to discuss policy, it's called Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). --InShaneee 23:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I request that you kindly unwatch my userpage? If not, that's okay. This is just a personal request. Feel free to ignore it. --Aminz 23:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never had it watched. I have been keeping an eye on it recently, though, since you've been doing little aside from crusading across the wiki in a fairly disruptive manner. --InShaneee 23:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee, thanks. I don't honestly get my disruptive manner. But anyways, I just would like to work on the policies now. I promise not to post anything on either your or Cyde's userpage and unwatch both. Thanks in advance. --Aminz 23:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)