User talk:Reza1

Robert Spencer

Hi again -- I hope you don't mind, but our dialogue at WP:AIV has been removed now, so with your permission I'll try to help you resolve things here.

I agree that the name of that page is a little confusing, and it's no problem that you reported there. Perhaps there are outcomes other than blocking that result from reports to AIV, but I'm not aware of them. At any rate, regarding the section in the article, I don't really have experience in dealing with content disputes. I would really recommend trying to talk things out before reporting people. I know you said talking with them has done nothing, and if that's true, you're welcome to revert your changes back and report them at WP:AN3 if they violate WP:3RR. Other steps for solving problems like this are at WP:DR, including making requests for comment.

Thanks for trying to go about this in an orderly way. I am glad to see you weren't interested in editing blocks -- obviously, your civil dialogue and interest in following policy are marks of a good Wikipedian.

Sorry I can't help you out more specifically than that. I personally would probably go the 3RR route. Let me know if you run into any obvious vandalism at that page or elsewhere and I'll be glad to help out with that.

Thanks again; happy editing! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop inserting the controversy section into the Robert Spencer article. You are violating the three revert rule on the biography of a living person. Slow down and let's look at your sources, what's the great rush?EricR 20:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way

Oh, and I'd like to give you the standard boilerplate welcome, if you don't mind.

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on [[User talk:{{{1}}}|my talk page]]. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 09:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last message, promise -- if you'd like, you're more than welcome to use the {{helpme}} tag listed above. Someone might come along with more knowledge on this than me (I've only been here 3-4 months, though that's probably long enough to be inexcusable). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

You were reported for a 3RR violation on Robert Spencer and have been blocked for 24 hours. Although you're a new editor and we usually allow some leeway over the first violation, you were blocked because you were warned twice, and then reverted again even after you responded to the 3RR report.

Please note for future reference that a revert is any undoing of another editor's work, in whole or in part, and that it makes no difference what your view of the content is (unless it is simple vandalism). Please take the time out to review WP:3RR carefully. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I was editing in good faith. They are removing well-sourced material. Besides, other editors also reverted more than 3 reverts on Spencer or Bat Ye'or page.

It is okay with me to get blocked. Please have a look at the dispute. That's all I request. --Reza1 20:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question: Which pages can I edit? --Reza1 20:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reza, you can only edit your talk page until the block is over. There were three problems with what you did: (1) you violated the 3RR rule; (2) you ignored warnings and continued to revert even after you knew you'd been reported for it; and (3) the sentence you wanted to add to the beginning of the article, "Robert Spencer is a controversial ...," is arguably a violation of WP:BLP, a policy we take very seriously.

In future, if you find yourself opposed by a number of editors, please take the time to discuss the issue on the talk page rather than continuing to revert; and read WP:3RR and WP:BLP very carefully so that you understand what they entail. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SlimVirgin, thanks. I agree with your points. The word "controversial" should be removed from the article. But please note that other editors have also violated 3RR. But of course, there is no point of having them blocked. Would you please, please, join the discussion. Thanks. --Reza1 23:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reza, hi, you really should have placed a warning on that RfC for us naive editors who don't follow this type of thing! The reason i reverted your addition of the controversy section to Robert Spencer was not because such a section is unwarranted, but because some of the sources used were not of sufficient quality as required by the biographies of living persons policy. Your quotation of Carl Ernst was sourced to a web page that, while appearing in a directory beneath the page of a course Prof. Ernst teaches, cannot be reliably attributed to him (his name does not even appear on that page.)

The Khaleel Mohammed quotations look to be correctly attributed, but he is only an associate professor and the comments were very derogatory. Perhaps the fact that Spencer debated him would make those quotes suitably for inclusion—but's that's probably a matter for more than one editor to decide.EricR 22:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EricR, thanks for agreeing that the such a section is not unwarranted. EricR, based on my experience, only professors and their TA's are allowed posting a page under the course web pages. They usually post it for the use of students. TA's never post such pages without approval of the course instructor. Also, please have a look at these similar pages: http://www.unc.edu/courses/2004spring/reli/026/001/1-15.htm , http://www.unc.edu/courses/2004spring/reli/026/001/waldman.htm , http://www.unc.edu/courses/2004spring/reli/026/001/1-27.htm . These are examples of other pages under the course page. One can find the links to them for example here: http://www.unc.edu/courses/2004spring/reli/026/001/schedule.htm . --Reza1 23:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please have a look at this: [1], there is a claim here [2] that Spencer posted this after Ernst's post on his course page. Here is Spencer's response to this claim: "One more thing: You say, "Once Carl Ernst pointed this the [sic] connections of Robert Spencer to consverative [sic] oganizations [sic], what was Robert Spencer's response? To write a column called: 'Well done, good and faithful servant: American prof's book on Islam wins award in Cairo'"

Actually, I didn't write that in response to Ernst. I hadn't seen what Ernst wrote until tonight. But I'm glad you brought it up, Omid, because the Egyptian prize is just another indication of the high ideological coloring of both Ernst's work and yours. It is more than absurd for you to quote Ernst saying that my books are "supported by specific political and ideological interests," as if yours aren't.

Bottom line, Omid: you can't refute them. You can't go into Islam Unveiled or Onward Muslim Soldiers and find anything inaccurate in them. So instead, you resort to dark mumblings about my "connections" and smears of "Islamophobia."[3]--Reza1 10:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EricR, I agree that the quotes are very derogatory. But please answer this question: Isn't the title of Spencer's book very derogatory? "The Truth About Muhammad: The Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion" --Reza1 23:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EricR, also please note that on the talk page of Spencer, I wrote these but it was rejected on the basis that we shouldn't have any conroversy section:

1. I added the neutrality tag to the conroversy section as you pointed out that "controversy itself is 100% Anti-spencer". Feel free to add material in defense of Spencer but please from academic scholars or notable people. But please don't remove other people's work. You wanted to add something from Mark Levine I guess. 2. Articles on Edward Said, Bernard Lewis do have a controversy section. Spencer is clearly controversial, isn't he? So, in fairness, we should have this section.

--Reza1 23:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Spencer

I should be thanking you, instead, for improving the article. Leave a message on my talk page anytime you need help with such issues. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Congress Foundation

Do not delete properly sourced and cited content, it can be considered vandalism. FeloniousMonk 00:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should Jerry Klein Islamophobia experiment be deleted?

As you have contributed to the Islamophobia article, please consider visiting Jerry Klein’s 2006 Islamophobia Radio Parody where Jerry Klein acted as if he was for forcing American-Muslims to wear special identification marks, similar to the Jews in Nazi Germany. This was to gauge his audience’s reaction and he was shocked by the calls he received. It is currently being debated if the page should be deleted. Please read the article and vote at [4]. Thank You.Wowaconia 23:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]