User talk:CltFn/Archive 4

Secular critics of Islam

FYI, I've removed the list of secular muslims on List of critics of Islam per the discussion on the Talk page. --Ephilei 21:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new titles appears to be fine. --Ephilei 21:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of online Christian pop radio stations

Your edit of this page? -- Koffieyahoo 05:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAIR

Hey CltFn -- could use your input on the CAIR article; we have a very persistent guy who wants to remove information from the article. You may have greater persistance than I can muster. Andjam is already helping out. Sdedeo (tips) 19:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali image

Your source details are nil. http://www.ayaanhirsiali.com/ goes nowhere ( a for sale sign on the domain) the other link you've provided showes no source details and does not properly credit the copyright holder. Please don't revert it's properly sourced/cited/tagged state now. Thanks. Netscott 16:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a secondary source... with no copyright details. By all means add that link without removing the link I've included... if you remove the details I've added the image will be deleted for sure. Netscott 16:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ayaan hirsi ali parliament.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Ayaan hirsi ali parliament.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu Badali 18:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asma bint Marwan

Could you look out for this article? It seems that BhaiSaab want to delete most of it, including all the information that actually has a valid source, in order to make a rather silly Point about a previous edit on the Islamophobia article? Also, now that I am talking to you anyway, I thought that you might be interested in this: [1] -- Karl Meier 21:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Your recent edit to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 14:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You made a very poor decision trying to manually move the page like that after the pagemove was reverted and the page protected from being moved. This has been discussed in depth on the talk page. Further disruptive actions against consensus may result in a block. --Cyde↔Weys 14:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Mail

CltFn, can you enable emailing from Wikipedia. I want to email you regarding Hagarism and Michael Cook's email. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to post his email on here - spammers always find email addresses on websites. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you have it on your watchlist, so I'm letting you know I posted a dispute on [2]. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to JSTOR? BhaiSaab ^talk 17:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you User:70.149.80.105 who made these edits: [3], [4]? BhaiSaab ^talk 03:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you? BhaiSaab ^talk 03:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange you won't answer the question. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it is, but alright. I'm not a Saudi, so where do you get "mutaween" from? BhaiSaab ^talk 03:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CltFn, the manner in which you adhere to the findings of Hagarism, even though the authors don't agree with its thesis anymore, makes me think you're trying to change how Muslim history is documented on Wikipedia. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does the shortened section mislead the reader into believing? Please explain on the talk page of Hagarism. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

I noticed User:BhaiSaab attacked you here [5], and has used his baiting tactics against you also. You might want to join the discussion on his actions on this [6] page. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Hagarism

Hi CltFn. I had a look at the history page and the edit warring has been going on since August 6th. I had a look at the talk page and found out that there are still issues to be sorted out between yourselves. Do not forget that it is only a temporary protection to enforce a "cool down" period. It is not meant to express support for that version. You can still ask for an unprotection if you believe so but i'd suggest that you sort that out at the talk page first. Cheers -- Szvest 09:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Jews

Read Persian_Jews#Safavid_and_Qajar_dynasties_.281502-1925.29, those quotes from "Jews of Islam" are already cited under that section in the proper format, avoid redundancy. --Mardavich 18:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not only your inclusion is redundant, you should know that copying and pasting two pages of "Jews of Islam" word by word in its entirety [7] [8], is a violation of WP:FAIR and WP:NPS:

"extensive quotation of copyrighted text is not fair use and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy."

If you insist on blindly reverting, I'll have no choice but to report you for copy right violation now that you've been warned. --Mardavich 19:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Khwarizmi

Please stop suggesting that he was a Zoroastrian (without any citing any sources), especially by removing cited material that suggests he was a Muslim. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it's perfectly reasonable to conclude he was a Zoroastrian when he never wrote anything about it? Hilarious. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Statement

"We have already discussed getting consensus before a change , and consensus does not mean consensus with your own sockpuppets"

Please back up your accusations of sockpuppets with proof. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewashers and sockpuppets

BhaiSaab has been vandalizing your last edit (which I support) of Council on American-Islamic Relations ("relations", yeah right!). He is a dogged fellow and, if you feel that those edits need to be there, then we will need all the warm bodies we can get over there.ThanksNetaji 05:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's vandalism why not give me a few warning templates? Do not refer to content disputes as vandalism. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balance

Hi CltFn,

I have honestly done my best to keep the balance on the Spencer article. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Spencer#Balance . Thanks --Reza1 09:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also, please note that I found and added some quotes from Bat Ye'or in defense of Spencer and put them at the top of the section. --Reza1 09:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr on Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World

I've blocked you for 48h for 3RR on Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World etc William M. Connolley 18:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

link to Persian

When you want to link to the article about something Persian, please do not link to Persian, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as Persian people, Persian language, or Iran, by writing out [[Persian language|Persian]] or [[Iran|Persian]]. Regards, -- Jeff3000 21:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jews of Islam

You said "the quote is in the public domain." If that's right, you'll need to attribute the source that is in the public domain - not The Jews of Islam book itself, which is still under copyright. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Search link "reference"

A search link is not a reference, you need to cite a secondary source for the claim. What the search just establishes is that it was mentioned in those books - it doesn't necessarily mean that it was used as a reference or cited. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is not self-supported; it is also misleading in that it makes the reader think those scholars used Hagarism as a reference. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring

Since, despite your previous block having just expired, you continue to engage in edit warring in the same article, Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World, and elswhere, The Jews of Islam, I have reblocked you for another 48 hours. When you return from the block, please work constructively towards consensus, and use dispute resolution when necessary, noe edit warring. Dmcdevit·t 02:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request.

Request reason: " DmcDevit charges are without merit as I have been editing in good faith- an examination of my recent edits should confirm this. I have only made 2 edits on The Jews of Islam the latest of which was accepted by other editors and I have used the talk page on Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World, who is making this accusation?"

Decline reason: "Edit warring as cited at [9] -- Netsnipe ► 08:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request.

Request reason: "no merit to accusation or even netsnipe link which are just a selection of edits over the past 4 months. Will the reviewing admin please examine the charges carefully , and make a properly researched assessment?"

Decline reason: "Block expired. -- Netsnipe ► 04:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CltFn for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]