User talk:JeddBham64

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi JeddBham64! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 15:00, Tuesday, July 26, 2022 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Sandbox moved to userspace

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I moved your second user sandbox to your userspace. It appears that you accidentally created it in article space (JeddBham64/sandbox2), so it's now at User:JeddBham64/sandbox2, where you can work on it without interruption. ^Complex/_Rational 18:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JeddBham64 (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Alexander Keighley, from its old location at User:JeddBham64/sandbox2. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 06:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note my removal of Dr had nothing to do with the subject.

See for instance Stephen Hawking. It’s something I routinely remove when I see it. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, you were quite correct to do so. JeddBham64 (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Your edit to Bill Warner (writer) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Do this again and you might be blocked, although not by me. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've contacted the copyright holders, they are happy for it to be used, and VRT should be receiving their permission to use the image soon. JeddBham64 (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JeddBham--I noticed you have this, User:JeddBham64/sandbox. What's its purpose? Because we are dealing with BLP matters, in an area governed by ArbCom-issued sanctions, and the sandbox is clearly inferior to the actual article, particularly in sourcing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I have misunderstood the purpose and protocols of Sandboxes. I understand that they are places where one can try things out, make mistakes, work on things, have half-finished ideas sketched out, where maybe one can try out text and formatting without necessarily having to provide all the sources that would be required for a published page.

However, if this particular sandbox violates a particular Wikipedia rule, I will be happy to delete its contents. JeddBham64 (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it anyway. But I'd appreciate a proper explanation as to why you think my use of the sandbox was problemmatic - does the content of a sandbox have to be of the same standards as published pages? That seems to go against the whole purpose of sandboxes. JeddBham64 (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeoning and wikilawyering

Your bludgeoning and wikilawyering at Talk:Bill Warner (writer) in the sections "Moorthy Muthuswamy" and "Using more bigots/haters as sources" is unacceptable talkpage conduct. Please try to communicate with other editors rather than picking apart their arguments with repeated requests for things like "the Wikipedia policy that allows editors to deprecate sources on grounds that you gave - i.e. that a source's qualifications must align with the nature of the claim being made" or "a policy which says an editor can block a valid source simply because he disagrees with an opinion expressed therein", or you may be blocked from Bill Warner (writer) and its talkpage. Your refusal to accept other editors' opinions as legitimate because they haven't satisfied such requests (e. g. you state "Until you do I will consider that your attempt at 'deprecation' not in accordance with Wikipedia policy", and "DougWeller gave no coherent grounds for his objection. Therefore his intervention was merely a 'deletion', not an 'objection'.") is mere sealioning. Compare also our article. Bishonen | tålk 11:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Well, your warning has turned out to be superfluous: I have been locked out from editing Warner's page, despite not having made any edit since your warning!

Everything in this affair seems arbitrary, chaotic and partisan - senior admins persistently labeling living persons as "bigots/haters" whilst bog-standard plebian editors are banned from editing a page for trying to hold senior admins accountable to Wikipedia's policies.

I guess I am guilty of lèse-majesté.

These powerful senior editors have done everything and anything to prevent the article from being balanced and informative. Genocidal criminals such as Stalin, Mao Tse Tung & al-Baghdadi have more balanced and informative wikipedia articles than Warner. JeddBham64 (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is locked out, it’s not aimed at you although it’s interesting you think that it’s aimed at you. Technically Admins can edit but would be at risk of being blocked if they did. A lot of people think people like Warner are haters, hopefully we are in the majority. Doug Weller talk 07:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

>"it’s not aimed at you although it’s interesting you think that it’s aimed at you"

- I guess that must be an effect of the railroading (I feel) I'm being subjected to.

>" A lot of people think people like Warner are haters, hopefully we are in the majority. "

"A lot of people" have adopted the Muslim Brotherhood reflex of considering all criticism of Political Islam as 'hatred' or 'phobia'.

Also note that the only hateful speech in this (publicly visible) talk page does not come from Warner. Or from those editors who have tried - and failed - to restore some balance to the article. JeddBham64 (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chief among those who say Bill Warner hates Islam is Bill Warner, at :34–35 seconds: "Let me be clear, I do hate Islam." Carlstak (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hating a political ideology is different to hating people - my great uncle hated the Nazism that occupied his country and died fighting it. He did not hate Germans. It is quite reasonable to hate political systems such as Communism, Fascism and Nazism.

BTW The expressions of hate on this talk page are directed at living people, not political systems. JeddBham64 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlstak

Thank you for bringing this video to my attention. It could be a useful source for Warner's biography, especially seeing that you have given it your imprimatur as a valid source.

P.S. You should have watched a few seconds beyond your cherry-pick:

"notice that I did not say that I hate Muslims. But I do hate the ideology of Islam" 45-50 seconds JeddBham64 (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice where everyone can see it of your intention (implied) to try to wikilawyer more deprecated content into the article. I certainly have not given it my imprimatur as a reliable source for the Wikipedia article—just another instance of your misrepresenting what I say. It's clearly not because it's self-published by Bill Warner, and per WP:RSPYT it shouldn't be used at all. If you try to add it to the article it will be promptly removed.

How would you know how much of the video I've watched? He says he doesn't hate Muslims, but he absolutely says he hates Islam, the very thing that defines Muslims, and then he proceeds to list, rather incoherently, the things he hates about Islam: "I hate a doctrine that's found in the Koran, Allah, the Sirah—Muhammad's biography—the Hadith—his traditions, I hate the Islam that is found in that..." So supposedly he doesn't hate Muslims—but he does hate everything that makes them Muslims. That's hate speech. You said, "...the only hateful speech in this (publicly visible) talk page does not come from Warner", and I was responding to that. It would appear that his views on Islam align with your own. Carlstak (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

" So supposedly he doesn't hate Muslims—but he does hate everything that makes them Muslims."

I guess that Warner doesn't assume that all Muslims are in favour of wife-beating and inbreeding.

That's the difference between Warner's position and yours.

One can reject and oppose an ideology without having to hate all who follow that ideology. Warner's position acknowledges that people can be better, often much better, than the political ideology they hold - think of Oscar Schindler. JeddBham64 (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So he's happy to let Muslims practice their religion and build mosques? Doug Weller talk 08:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you mean by 'practice their religion'.

If by "practice their religion" you mean prayers, rituals and good deeds - then, I imagine Warner would be entirely happy with that.

If in "practice their religion" you include (for example) wife beating, inbreeding, FGM and violent jihad then I guess he would not be happy with that. JeddBham64 (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JeddBham64 so he’s ok with mosques after all? Doug Weller talk 07:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on which of the above kinds of practices the mosque is being (or will be) used to promote. JeddBham64 (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Alexander Keighley

Hello, JeddBham64. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Alexander Keighley, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]