User talk:BhaiSaab/A8

	Archives
	1 2 3 4 5 6 7

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This user supports Daniel.Bryant for the Arbitration Committee.

Somehow understandable

Hello BhaiSaab, sorry to be seeing you retiring but I do understand it. Editing on religious/political/racial topics on Wikipedia can be very tiring especially as it inclines one to want to "battle" for truth (particularly truth in one's own eyes). To be honest I wouldn't be too surprised to see you come back. Wikipedia is addictive and there's been a couple of times where I told myself that I was retiring... but came back. If you do not come back then I wish you well in your future endeavors. Take it easy. (→Netscott) 19:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I'm not sure if it will make a difference but you might want to note the last entry on this block log. This relates to that. See you. (→Netscott) 23:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wasn't sure if that threat was legal or not... and I didn't expect the extreme response that my inquiry generated but I was merely trying to better understand your depature. I suppose it is a fitting way to retire... with a bit of a flurry at the end. (→Netscott) 01:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is addictive and at times I have myself seen it interefere in my personal and professional life...and have contemplated why should I care ..let those who are bent on distorting histories even contemporary history - that passed just beneath your full views..do what they want..email me - I think the way WP is progressing - there are other Wikis being contemplated that place a restriction on who can edit and would overtake the propaganda house it is being made.In any case, I will continue in the hope that there is someone who could end the victory of persistent editing here MerryJ-Ho 16:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come back

Hi BhaiSaab come back. One should not give up as leaving will not make thing better. Wassalam --- ALM 09:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Come back, BhaiSaab. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 09:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O_O

You're lucky he didn't call the fbi after what you did.--D-Boy 20:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Return

I have decided to come back for reasons that are beyond my control. It was a nice break though, I must admit. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

welcome back! --- ALM 09:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I have restored the sentence. You have also violated 3RR since your first edit today was a partial revert to an earlier version.Hkelkar 23:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CltFn

Thanks for noticing my dispute with this user. So far in my experience he has been difficult to say the least but not outrageous. I just made a number of edits to the page in dispute if he reverts them without a decent discussion then I think I will have better ground to stand on while commenting on him. Daniel J. Leivick 01:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YAY!

Welcome back! And remember not to feed the trolls! NinaEliza has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! NinaEliza ^talk

One more thing

Check out my new userbox. Click on the link and it leads to you to a very good essay.

DGAF

This user does not give a fuck and as such will respond to comments with apathy.

Feel free to use it as well if you so desire! Or, you know, whatever...:)NinaEliza 02:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. Your kind words mean a lot to me. Keep the faith!NinaEliza 02:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Deletion

I just changed the way that wiki links were parsed see [[1]] for the same tool in javascript. and after it saved it closed that tab. I hope that solves your questions. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 13:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of the Quran

I believe it promotes a particular POV, and it's a tertiary source. However I'm not against use of it in principle. It could be used in a NPOV way. Arrow740 23:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They oppose Islam, obviously. However, we use them as sources of opinion, not as sources of fact. The encyclopedia of the Quran would presumably be used as a source of facts. It is only in this situation that bias becomes a problem. Thus, if someone wishes to use material from the encyclopedia of the Quran, and the material expresses a particular POV, that can be objectionable depending on the POV, the overtness of the bias, and the context in which it is used. Arrow740 01:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you must have carefully examined the websites you keep talking about. Arrow740 14:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's something specific you disagree with them about? Arrow740 14:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering what your response is to an argument he's made about Islam, not your ideas about the man himself. Arrow740 14:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you haven't found a flaw in any of their ideas themselves? As regards your other comment, are you saying that all Muslims are equally capable of finding out the truth about Islam? Arrow740 14:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have found in my own life that in evaluating ideas, it is best to carefully examine the idea itself, and not dismiss it because of who is saying it. You aren't willing to tell me why you disagree with Ali Sina's conclusions, and that's your choice. Arrow740 14:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think about something rigorously as I am trained to do, an argument speaks for itself. It either proves a point, or it doesn't. As regards the list, I'm just reverting someone else's removal of the list. The answer is not to remove the entire list, because those books do treat the topic of Muhammad as a general. The answer is to complement those books with other books. Arrow740 15:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The biased list can also be found here. Instead of deleting it, label it as biased, or fix it. Other people spent some time trying to write the list, which is relevant. Arrow740 15:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "as if," and I'm not claiming Spencer and Ye'or are the most relevant authors in the field. However they do have some relevance. By all means, add to the list the authors you find to be more relevant. Arrow740 15:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RS

You tell me if anyone is adding non-RS in any article, and you need a overview of it. --Striver 16:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning regarding Indian caste system

I have not protected the article, but be aware that excessive reversions of the article may lead to a 3RR block. Take the discussion to the talk page to avoid that. -- tariqabjotu 16:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed my edits endlessly. We need an outside mediator, and when we tried to get one, no one helped us. Please take a look at the discussions. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But revert-warring is still not the answer. It sounded like you wanted the article to be protected at your version. -- tariqabjotu 17:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian caste system Mediation

Please take a look at Talk:Indian caste system/Mediation (December 2006) and begin populating the "issues to be mediated" regarding the Indian caste system article. Also, please sign below Parties' agreement to mediate stating that you "agree" to mediate or "recuse" yourself from the dispute resolution process. Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu 22:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sina

Do you know who he's referring to here as "someone"? (→Netscott) 03:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol! Indeed, that's pretty freaky. (→Netscott) 03:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to see you back by the way. (→Netscott) 03:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you over here? :-) (→Netscott) 03:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the Zakir Naik article be deleted under the WP:RS logic? (→Netscott) 04:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you not edit war about references to him. Let some time go by and then come back to it... when things have died down reducing references due to non-notability will be less opposed. (→Netscott) 04:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits make me laugh. You must be following this. (-: (→Netscott) 05:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny!!!! (→Netscott) 05:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well he could be following the same link as you. Again this is going to be a "hot topic" for a bit and I imagine certain editors are going to be keen to not see any "hemorrhaging" of Sina's viewpoints on certain articles. With that being the case it's likely almost pointless to try to reduce references to him until later. (→Netscott) 12:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if User:Karl Meier isn't following that link he's likely got most if not all of those articles watchlisted from his previous days of editing. (→Netscott) 13:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Image talk:Qana massacre.jpg --Striver 04:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

Please stop vandalizing relevant information relating to Ali Sina. Your excuse, which is a false claim that the Ali Sina article was deleted because of him being non-notable is not acceptable. Notability was never an issue, and a new article regarding his organization has already been started. The Ali Sina article might be recreated with better sources, or it will be redirected to this page. -- Karl Meier 12:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that Ali Sina is somehow "non-notable" is your personal opinion and nothing more. It wasn't the reason why the article was deleted, and it can be recreated again, as long as proper sources are being used. The problem right now is that you are vandalizing referenced information in order to push your personal opinion that Sina some non notable. -- Karl Meier 16:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop making up excuses for deleting referenced information, just because it is critical of Islam. -- Karl Meier 18:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sina / ACIM

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

Keeping cool

I suggest you guys stay away from each other for a few days, and after that confine your remarks to content and do not talk about each other at all. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism in modern India

India Buddhist revival/Dalit Buddhist Movement/Buddhist Revival in India has been moved to Buddhism in modern India. utcursch | talk 15:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you might be aware that Pkulkarni (talk · contribs) and his/her socks have been blocked (see Talk:Dalit Buddhist movement). User:Pkulkarni (with his sock accounts) was the only person opposed to an article with the title Dalit Buddhist movement or Ambedkarite Buddhism. Other involved parties such as User:Hkelkar, User:AMbroodEY, Nat Krause [2], and NinaEliza [3] support for separate article about Dalit Buddhist movement. So, I've moved the article to Dalit Buddhist movement. The content about non-Ambedkarite Buddhism has been removed and addded to Buddhism in India [4]. Sorry for all the confusion. I hope I'm finally fixing this. Thanks. utcursch | talk 15:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[5] made on December 7 2006 to Religion of Peace

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 10:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I received an e-mail to review this. See my comments at: [6]. I agree that two of the reverts were vandalism reversion, and have unblocked you. -- Samir धर्म 10:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - apologies for this William M. Connolley 11:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help wanted

please help me with my articles on Muslims First Journey To America and Native Americans and Islam some islamaphobic people are destroying them7day 20:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's still time...

...to make peace. If you, Terry and co. are willing. Hkelkar 00:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did not start this little campaign, and what is happening now is what you wanted (you said as much). Hkelkar 00:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7