User talk:Builder w

Interesting Link:

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy ([1]) --Lacarids (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit to Faith Freedom International:

Your recent edit to Faith Freedom International (diff) was reverted by automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either vandalism or link spam to the page. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. Thanks! // VoABot II 18:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit to Religion of Peace:

Your recent edit to Religion of Peace (diff) was reverted by automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either vandalism or link spam to the page. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. Thanks! // VoABot II 19:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion of Peace

Please stop replacing this article with the "Islam" article. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answering-Islam.org

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Answering-Islam.org, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Answering-Islam.org. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for 6 hours for repeatedly replacing the Religion of Peace article with content from Islam. Please edit constructively after returning from your block. If you intend to make major changes to any article discuss on the talk page first. Regards, - Aksi_great (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vandalism

In fact Islam means submission, as (almost) everyone knows. Your statement that killing one person is the same as killing all of mankind is also incorrect. You can read three translations of the Qur'anic verse here. In fact you'll see that it is Muhammad telling the Jews that if they kill a Muslim, they'll be in serious trouble. The next verse gives possible (harsh) punishments for them, as well as for anyone who causes Muhammad "mischief." As regards Muslims hating rapists, that is another matter. In a modern country, this (or read it here) would be prosecuted as rape. Arrow740 02:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the stuff in your post was true, and I already knew it. I believe in God too, just not the storm god who started out as one god of many and ended up the god of Abraham. You might be interested to know that India is the most religious nation on Earth, and that is largely because of the Hindus. You said you didn't want to debate, and that's fine. Here's a question that's not really about Islam. Is God not perfect? Yes. Does that mean he is as forgiving and merciful as possible? Yes. Then why would he send a man to eternal hell? Why not give him another chance on earth, if he screwed up? Arrow740 08:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad's kindness and tenderness is now widely accepted in scholarly sources. See Professor Montgomary Watt's passage from his book: "Muhammad:Prophet and Statesman"[2] . The persecution which was conducted was of special nature. You've already read the article Itmam al-hujjah. This was purely a Divine judgement and now no one can repeat this and no one can say that he has been asked by God to separate good people from bad and finally punish them in this very world. You need to widen your view to see the world from a different angle. We need to create a better world where we all respect each other. Just like Qur'an says to direct addressees of Muhammad who were Christians and Jews, :Come to the point where we all agree that Abraham was neither Jew nor a Christian. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 11:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop posting essays to my talk page. Nothing but a gun to my head would make me convert to Islam. The Quran contradicts science, morality, history, logic, and itself, and that's just the beginning of the problems with Islam. See WP:SOAP. Wikipedia is not the place for these essays. Arrow740 03:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your last essay was interesting (though inappropriate). I think all religions work against unbelief equally. Islam goes too far by advocating death sentences for people who stop believing in Islam. Arrow740 03:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problems

Unspecified source for Image:Zakir Naik.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Zakir Naik.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — coelacan talk — 13:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Amber diptera-Fossil.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Amber diptera-Fossil.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — coelacan talk — 13:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

response

Salaam! You didn't understand Itmam al-hujjah completely. Qur'an is full of stories that how God destroyed nations before prophet Muhammad and similar thing happened with the addresses of the prophet. Hence, only messenger can do Itmam al-hujjah, not me or you. And this very punishment of adversaries of the messenger, which gives us a sure proof of the Messenger's truth and that he really had the God on his side. As Montgomery watt writes that how Muhammad made this upsurge in religion, no other phenomenon can explain but Divine help. So, we should be rest assured that by having the punishment of the adversaries of prophet Muhammad, we can tell till day of Judgement to our children that there was aprophet, who did Itmam al-hujjah and God punished his enemies. This part of the religion is called "Wisdom" or Hikmah of the religion. Rest is "Kitab" or Sharia or simply Laws. Hope you have understood this concept. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 06:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So assassination of political opponents, execution of prisoners, and torturing a man to death are now a sign that Muhammad was holy??!! Arrow740 07:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mate! you need to acquaint yourself with the philosophy of the religion. Muhammad's personality is very well-known in scholarly circles for good character. there is no question of being him unholy. Secondly, I also find all the punishments by all the Governments to be quite brutal i.e. life imprisonment, labour work, prisonment in a cubic cell etc. But there is a reason why governments do that. The God chooses his messengers to do that so that people would remember day of judgement when everyone will be held accountable for his/her deeds. Hence, a messenger only rehearses what is going to happen at a larger scale. Hence, I find a philosophical paradox, if God wouldn't punish his enemies in this world who challenge Him infront of His messenger, otherwise no one would know that this very person was sent by God. And I find Christian concept of God in which God is just peace and bad things came to this world by original sin as defective, because it would mean that God didn't have the control over evil, and this concept also challenges God's absolute power. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assalam-O-Alaikum
First of all, I would liks to say thanks for your Kind response. Then I must say that It may be possible that I didn't understand that article(Itmam al-hujjah) completely. Similarly, my dear brother, it may be possible that you(User:Arrow740) do not understand Islam completely. I think that you never read the Holy Quraan and you just read the verses that some anti-Muslims give to you with their own translations.
Then I must say that the Islam never said to Kill a single innocent human just due to his belief. The only one possibility is that if a Muslim turns to a non-Muslim. In this case, how the Islam can spread? When a non-Muslim is reverted to a Muslim, he is told about this, but still, Islam is the fastest growing religion, why? Other way, every one can claim to be Muslim and you know what can happen with Islam? It is the method to protect the religion.
That is why I say that Islam has the MOST resistance against the religion of disbelief. It is only the religion whose followers are religious even in USA. A common Hindu in USA is not a Hindu, he behaves like Athiest, similarly, no other (common) followers are religious, but Muslims are. Muslims girls still like Hijab, for what? Because they love Islam. Every muslim loves his religion. Non-Muslims usually become neutral when they debate with Muslims, why? Because they cannot defend their religion against Islam.
That is why my dear brother, it is the only religion left in the World whose followers respect it. You can find a christian making the cartoons of God, a hindu challanging the God, but Muslims respect their religion. Our FAITH is very strong and very clear.
Some people say that it is due to the fear of punishmints. My dear brother, there is no end of such arguments. Muslims have no punishments in USA. Most of the respect is due to strong faith, the punishments are for a few people, out of billlions.
For example, my faith is so strong that I cannot deny God. I do not need any proof of God's existance, similarly, I do not need any proof of God's non-existance. A muslim believes in God regardless of any historical or scientific fact.
If you put a Gun on my head and say me to deny God, I'll never. If you kill me and suppose, Give a new life to me and again put the Gun on my head and say to deny God, I'll never. The more you kill, the more I'll be happy. I'll love to be killed 1000 times then denying God just once.
This is how strong our faith is. Now, this faith is not against any religion as general. It is just our own faith. When any one accepts Islam, He has to assume that he will be kiled, but he will not deny the God.
You see, how the Islam is strong against the religion of disbelief? It is the only religion that can protect the humanity against the religion of disbelief. So that is why I give preferance to Islam.
Read these verses of the Quraan:

"Recite to them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! they each presented a sacrifice (to Allah): It was accepted from one, but not from the other. Said the latter: "Be sure I will slay thee." "Surely," said the former, "Allah doth accept of the sacrifice of those who are righteous. If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear Allah, the cherisher of the worlds. For me, I intend to let thee draw on thyself my sin as well as thine, for thou wilt be among the companions of the fire, and that is the reward of those who do wrong. The (selfish) soul of the other led him to the murder of his brother: he murdered him, and became (himself) one of the lost ones. Then Allah sent a raven, who scratched the ground, to show him how to hide the shame of his brother. "Woe is me!" said he; "Was I not even able to be as this raven, and to hide the shame of my brother?" then he became full of regrets. On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land."Holy Quraan(005.027)

Islam says not to kill them until they start killing you. And this verse was clearly misunderstood by the user:Arrow740.
Once, the Prophet Muhammad went to the velly of TAIF, to spread the truth. The people started stoning on him. Even Muhammad's shoes were red from blood. The angel Jibrail was very angry But Muhammad said that may God take them to the truth one day, as this is the best for them. This is what Islam teaches us.
Yes, the disasters come and sometimes they are from God on evil. They disasters also come on to testify the faiths, on good people. There is no such rule that they only come from God. Most of the times, they are natural.
If they are from the God, The never come until people start disbelieving in God or killing the messengers or there are some other points that we can find in Quraan and Hadith, but not just due to not believing in Islam.
If disasters come on good people, the Islam tells us they they are to test the faiths(believe in God), so more the disasters come, the more the Islam gets stronger.
Muhammad indicated the concuer of many Developed States of That Time even when there were just a few Muslims. You can find a List of indications that are now true.
Dear brother, there is no single conflict between Quraan and science. You can find many conflicts, but they all are answered. No single conflict at all!
You told about the Christian concept of God. My dear, I do not want to criticise any religion here, not at all. I just want to expose the lies that are spreaded in your minds by the liars.
Assalam-O-Alaikum--Builder w 07:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image blanking

Please see response here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Aqsa Parvez

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Aqsa Parvez, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. <eleland/talk edits> 21:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of 3RR rule

More than 3 reverts in 24 hours will get you blocked. Please see WP:3RR and engage on talk. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Muhammad already has the picture there. The picture is being used in a number of different articles. For the list, click here.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any problem to you? If the pic is used anywhere, it doesn't matters. It is not Muhammad's pic. If you have one, use it anywhere!

There werent any digital cameras back then so of course it has to be a painting. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why it has to be a painting? Do you have ur pic on ur page, or I add a 'painting' of yours on ur home page?

And this not his painting. NOT AT ALL. I'll accept it if it is his painting. but it is NOT.

U ppl are going to illogical extremes. If it is reported that any artist has created his painting after seeing him, I'll accept that!

Read the previous talk archives of this article and the Black Stone. The authenticity of the painting has been discussed before. The painting is authentic. There's no such rule as, the painter must be able to see the subject. It can also be an artist's impression or imagination. No one said thats what Muhammad looked like and no one claimed it, and its not a requirement as its a painting. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aqsa Pervez

About your edit here, you said in your edit summary:

Is there any "reliable source" saying that she was killed for Hijab?

Can you see the big bold headline on this reliable source which is the first one in the article? Here, I'll repeat it for you:

Canadian of Pak origin kills his daughter for not wearing veil

Any questions on this now? You've had your account for a year. How can you not see the multiple number of reliable sources in this article? I think you need to read the policies on this website. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, this BIG BOLD line is the 'reliable' source. Then why the police is not declaring this? This is only a news and from an indian source. And this article is NOT covering any investigation or is it? This is just an early news and I have no problem it as an earlier report. But, there was not investigation report till my edit.

Yes that site is a reliable source. There's no requirement in Wikipedia that the police must also make the same assertion. Please dont make up your own rules here. If a newspaper reports something, thats a reliable source. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are going illogical. This report is also based on the reports from aqsa's friends. And it is an early report. There is no proof that she was killed for hijab. There can be some other reason. I don't say that Hijab is not the reason, but you can only say after the proper inquiry. If you see a person crossing the red-signal, and then he is killed by the policeman, will you finish the inquiry and say that the policeman killed him for crossing the red-signal? There can be any reason, let the inquiry be finished, and then report whatever it is. I'll never mind to write that she was killed for Hijab after the inquiry is complete. and i m not making any rule here. its you who are implementing ur own rules here.

You removed content sourced to a reliable source, the publisher is a reputable academic one. It clearly states that "honor kilings are sanctioned in Sharia law texts." Do you have a problem with that? Why did you remove that sourced fact? Arrow740 (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the "fact" has nothing to do with Aqsa Parvez. The allegedly "reputable academic" source does not mention Aqsa Parvez at all. All content in the article of Aqsa Parvez has to be regarding her, irrelevant info. violates WP:NOR. Thus, Builder w was correct in removing the content.Bless sins (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a NPOV issue. You can't have imams saying one thing when Islamic law says another. Arrow740 (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want it to mention, it should be in some other article, I don't mind. Instead of google searches and using it as a reference for something does not suits you. And what you are trying to prove is also some Imam's point of view. You'll be welcome to prove it using Quraan and authentic Hadith. In any case, there is no excuse for relating this murder with hijab until u 'prove' that Islam forces to kill women without hijab. Yes, Islam advocates good dress, but if a person is killed for crossing a red-signal, will you blame the red-signal? I hope you understand.

And if it is mentioned somewhere that honor killing is allowed, this does not mean that anyone can kill someone for anything. What a man can do if his mother or sister being raped in front of him. Should he go to police to report it first? HOWEVER, there is no such excuse in islam for Hijab!!!!!

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Builder w (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is my only account at wikipedia which is blocked now. I am have not logged in from more than a month and I don't know why got blocked.

Decline reason:

You have now been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia because a CheckUser has confirmed that you have repeated violated our Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy by using multiple accounts. No further appeal is possible. -- Netsnipe ► 15:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I don't know how the Checkuser confirmed it. How can i prove that I am using a single account. If I am using multiple accounts, why I got blocked on '20 December 2007' when attempting to remove unnecessary images from article Muhammad. After that, I again got blocked on 8th February and then 17th February(which I noticed today(31st march), when editing a page:National Monument, Islamabad). I don't remember if I have edited wikipedia after 4th Feb. Most of the times, I use wikipedia without signing in with IP:(58.65.180.58) , but I usually avoid editing while unsigned. Please also check my IP Address and check how many users are using this IP Address.
Please note that I live in Pakistan and I remember that the Internet in Pakistan was disturbed last month due to a cable-cut and our ISPs started connecting us from proxy servers. I think that this is a reason due to which someone thought that I have multiple User Accounts. However, I have now again started using the same IP Address. If you see any other IP addresses from my account, they may be from my ISP:"MicroNet Broadband, Pakistan"

In that case, there's nothing further any administrator who reviews CAT:RFU can do for you. You'll need to contact the administrator who blocked you directly, another CheckUser or a member of the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. -- Netsnipe ► 09:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Builder w (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked from wikipedia and the allegation is sockpuppetry. I don't know how the Checkuser confirmed it. How can i prove that I am using a single account. If I am using multiple accounts, why I got blocked on '20 December 2007' when attempting to remove unnecessary images from article Muhammad. After that, I again got blocked on 8th February and then 17th February(which I noticed on <31st march>, when editing a page:National Monument, Islamabad). I don't remember if I have edited wikipedia after 4th Feb. Most of the times, I use wikipedia without signing in with IP:(58.65.180.58) , but I usually avoid editing while unsigned. Please also check my IP Address and check how many users are using this IP Address. * Please note that I live in Pakistan and I remember that the Internet in Pakistan was disturbed last month due to a cable-cut and our ISPs started connecting us from proxy servers. I think that this is a reason due to which someone thought that I have multiple User Accounts. However, I have now again started using the same IP Address. If you see any other IP addresses from my account, they may be from my ISP:"MicroNet Broadband, Pakistan" * I also sent email to the user who blocked me, but got no response :(

Decline reason:

You have been banned. You'll have to appeal this by other means, not by using the {{unblock}} template. Rudget (review) 18:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

- But HOW? I don't know any other means.

Block review

I've been contacted by this user to review the block but I am failing to find the CU link which confirmed the sockpuppetry. Can someone (or the blocking admin) please provide a link? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the CU link?--Builder w (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the checkuser data on this user has expired, and I don't remember the results that led to this particular block. (In fact, I suspect that's why this user waited 2 months to appeal the block - he intentionally waited until the data expired before he requested the unblock). Raul654 (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raul, I respect your thoughts, but it is a fact that i stopped editing wikipedia many days before you blocked me. So, I did not need to login and that is why I was not able to see that I was blocked. While at that time, I did not stopped from viewing wikipedia for my knowledge(while not logged in). After many weeks, I felt that someone has removed an image, uploaded by me, from article:National Monument, Islamabad. I tried to include that image again, but it was surprisingly not found at wikipedia, even when I used the same code which was used before. So, I logged in to upload it again, but I was informed that I was blocked by you. After that, I requested other administrators for the unblock(unblock template), but one denied and asked me to contact you. I sent email to you via wikipedia send email function, BUT you never responded. I searched for other means for several days and at last I found the moderators. Now, one of them(Fayssal) is responding to me.
If you think that I am so expert that I know that the data is destroyed after a few days, then why I didn't knew about the 3RR Rule? You can verify that I was blocked due to 3RR and after that, I stopped editing that article. My last edit to wikipedia was in a talk page where I commented to remove the unnecessary/fake images. You blocked me after several days of that comment. You also marked 3 other uses as my sockpuppets: Deviantish‎, Ebanyan‎ and Sharpeffect‎. Where the first two have never edited wikipedia at all and I don't know anyone of them.
My last edit was comments in talk for images of Muhammad. I think that you blocked me for that. OK, no problem, you are administrator, but I recently read that if an administrator is also a party in an edit war or commenting, he must request other administrator to block the members of other party, instead of blocking his opposition. You can see your edit on article Muhammad, just before blocking me:Your edit in article Muhammad. You can edit, I respect your right, but please do not block people like that.
It is shocking to me that you have removed all my personal opinions and beliefs View your edit. If an administrator starts behaving like this, it damages the credibility of wikipedia, at least in front of me. --Builder w (talk)

I am sorry Builder w but your account is linked to a dozen of other accounts and therefore the block remains valid. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, any user on wikipedia can link any other user from his opposition to some fake accounts and block him? I understand your position, therefore, I am deeply thankful to you, you are the only person who tried to help me. I have not lost the hope and I'll raise the voice against this policy and specially the user who blocked me just due to my comments.

You saw that my account is linked to many other accounts, but do you have any proof, or in simple words, how they checked that I am using multiple accounts?

The user who blocked me was a party in an edit war, while I just commented, not edited the article. Is this allowed in wikipedia that an administrator can block his opposition(+ those who just comment) in an edit war?

Is there any special page, where I can take this case to analyze and resolve the issue. Otherwise, raul654 will continue to block other innocent ppl who have different point of view.

How my account is associated to dozens of other accounts? I just checked, I found only three:Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Builder_w
Another point is that the 3 users(User:Deviantish, User:Ebanyan & User:Sharpeffect) were marked as my sockpuppets are not 'proved' as sockpuppets. I looked at the template:Template:Sockpuppet, and confirmed that they are not proved to be sockpuppets, but they are still 'suspected' sockpuppets. How can someone be proved a sockpuppet master without proving the sockpuppets?--Builder w (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did the check myself Builder w. I am an administrator and arbitrator (not a moderator). In your case, I first acted as an administrator trying to review a block by another administrator. Both the response of the bloking admin and your explanations were not so convincing so I had to check it myself. What I found out is that your account is linked to many other accounts. I have a list:
There are 22 users including Builder w account. I am not going to name them all because not all of them are sockpuppets of this account. However, Adil zia, Habib Khan, Ebanyan, Naveedshakur, OmerKhetran and your account are the same. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats ok, I trust you. Maybe my account is linked to many other accounts. However, I have a single account, but I cannot prove it. If there are other other from the IP addresses which I use, these are due to dynamic IP address. There is one way to prove that. For example, pick any of my IP address(which I have used on wikipedia) and query from my ISP:Micronet Broadband[3]. I hope that they will inform you about all my IP addresses(That none of them can be used by one user for a long period). I had a static IP address before a few months, but the lease is now expired and they are providing me dynamic IP address.
I understand that due to this dynamic IP Address, I have 'technically' violated some rules of wikipedia. However, there are millions of wikipedia users who use dynamic IP address and are never blocked. I got blocked for just adding a comment to wikipedia against publishing fake images in article Muhammad. I'll now again request for a static IP address and will continue from a new account. I remain thankful to you as you are the only one who, at least, tried to help me. Wishing you all the best, sincerely Builder_w.--Builder w (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]