User talk:Tigeroo/Archive 2

Battle of Khaybar

Hello Tigeroo,

You need not self revert yourself here.[1] The other changes that got caught up, is basically an attempt (made by Arrow740 and others) to delete content sourced to Shibli Nomani, Montgomery Watt and Norman Stillman that the user doesn't approve of.Bless sins 04:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Arrow740 06:44, 27 June 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is just a gaming of the system on a technicality. I reverted myself and displayed my good faith. I only really reverted the tag once, when Biet Or explicitly made mention of its reversal it. Else all diffs imply that my tag was reverted in an ongoing edit war over other content from which I removed myself. The tag has been placed on behalf of wikipedias attempt towards countering systematic bias task team and the issue has been raised appropiately raised there on the discussion pages and should not be removed.--Tigeroo 07:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Block endorsed for edit warring. — Sandstein 20:20, 27 June 2007 (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.

"The tag has been placed on behalf of wikipedias attempt towards countering systematic bias task team..."

As no one else there has responded to your solicitation, I cannot see how you'd have been acting on the "task team's behalf," much less why this should allow you to edit-war against consensus.Proabivouac 07:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Safiyya bint Huyayy

Why arent you discussing the huge changes you want to bring in on Safiyya bint Huyayy? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, those changes have been discussed on talk months ago. It's just that Arrow740 chooses to ignore the discussion there.Bless sins 01:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:

Tigeroo, my comments on my talk page weren't about you, and i apologise if you feel that they were. ITAQALLAH 00:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be more careful

You removed my report when you made yours, be more careful please[3]. Until(1 == 2) 19:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in Europe

I didn't have to cite anything, the given links said what I put on my edit. I guess they didn't like it, even if it's true. But either way, I give up. Thanks for the advice. Energyfreezer 21:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infidel

Regarding [4], why haven't you sourced his information? Also this appears to be undue weight, as only a very small percentage of Hindus would know, much less use, this term. Arrow740 08:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Buddhipriya#Mleccha, my talk. Arrow740 08:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine-Arab wars

You and I don't own the article, but seeing as you were the only one to respond to my comment regarding the decisiveness of this conflict, I thought I might ask you - I think the wording should be changed back to how it was originally: Arab conquests. I know overall the war was a massive victory for the Arabs, I mean losing Egypt the Levant and North Africa requires a lot of beating. Nonetheless, it wasn't an Arab victory, but a series of arab victories. And then that creates the problem of making Byzantium seem like a clear loser when it resurged. So I suggest that we change it back (the result of the war) to just Arab conquests, because thats a good summarized result in my opinion. Or leave it as Arab victories; conquests in the Levant, Egypt and North Africa. Its suppose to be an info box, and I believe that this delivers much information for little taken space.

Regards, Tourskin 23:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim history task force

Salam again. I've made a new task force(Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Muslim history task force) in WikiProject Islam and I invite you to participate in it because you active in relevant articles like Muslim history. God bless you.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infidel

Sure. Why don't you open a discussion on the relevant Talk: pages, rather than reverting? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Talk:Infidel (disambiguation) page doesn't even exist, yet you managed to stalk me to the article and revert my edits there. Why don't you open up a discussion, rather than reverting? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Goldern Age

Have you read the sources that confirm this? Further, you need to provide a source for "Some count two ages one of the Abbassids AND a second under early ottomans, safavids and moghuls", otherwise this is OR. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From your comments "It's not too far a stretch either since it's end overlaps", it looks like you dont own the book. You've tried to do OR here by saying "its not too far a stretch". Its not too far a stretch then also to say that Mohammed persecuted ex-muslims and Jews (although that is much more obvious and primary sources have been quoted, so its not a similiar situation). Look at the standards you demand from others. I'll ask you again more clearly: Do you own this book? Have you physically seen the number 17 yourself in this book? Respond on the Persecution article's Talk as well. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've dug it up. This was a reference you added yourself last year. The first statement which mentions the number 13 (or 17) is actually unreferenced and is thus OR and should be taken out. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why didnt you put the page number in too? This way people can verify what you put in. You'll have to put the page number in, or I'll have to put a {{fact}} tag there. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back or front, you have to source and provide a page number for each statement. If its being mentioned in the back, it must be inside the book. I dont think "back of the book" is a reference that makes sense, so you have to give the page number where its being mentioned inside the book. Since you have the book, you should be able to find the statement. If there's a sentence that is formed of two parts, each part must be sourced. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should source each statement and sentence otherwise it will be marked with the fact tag and then eventually removed if a source is not found. You've been here for more than a year, you should know this. I've fixed it now after verifying the book from Google. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days in accordance with Wikipedia's Blocking Policy for repeatedly violating the 3-Revert Rule.

You are welcome to make useful contributions when the block has expired; if you feel this block is block is unjustified you can: email me at agkwiki@googlemail.com; add {{unblock|why you should be unblocked}}; or visit Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

Hopefully when you return your attitude to Wikipedia will have improved, and you shall be willing to make useful contributions to the encyclopedia.

Kind Regards,
Anthøny (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Safiyya

Arrow740 is once again vandalizing Safiyya. I've put up with this vandalism for several months (and you have too for a shorter period of time). Since Arrow740 refuses to discuss this issue on talk, I don't think an RfC or even mediation would help. THus what are your thoguhts on this?Bless sins 20:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would still encourage you try mediation. At the least it will enable a listing of pertinent issues to take place so atleast we can define the matter better. I will probably be on a wiki-break for the next month so my involvement in the mediation will have to wait.--Tigeroo 15:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is called meatpuppetry. Arrow740 21:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to review what meat puppetry is and what the issues are.--Tigeroo 21:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I've realized something since I made those comments. Mediation can only proceed if the other party accepts it as well. Since Arrow740 hasn't edited talk in months, I doubt he/she'll even respond to a request for mediation.Bless sins 04:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infidel

Please respond to issues raised here. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[5] made on August 2 2007 to Infidel

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 1 week. Alex Bakharev 23:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tigeroo, it the fourth 3RR block you have received in a short span of time. You really have to find a way to edit cooperatively with other users rather than edit war Alex Bakharev 23:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad bin Qasim

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. ugen64 22:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the edits and I don't know which side is "correct". The material you are removing does not seem to add a great deal to the article, I can agree about that. Maybe you tell me exactly what you don't like about the edits, so I can help mediate this conflict? I looked at the talk page and it just seems to be your "opponents" in this edit war complaining about your behavior. ugen64 22:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You started it"

When I see mass removals of sourced text, I often restore that text. Please use the talk page to argue why that material doesn't belong. Thanks. Arrow740 06:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tigeroo

You are throwing all caution and policies to the winds. Please adhere to the wikipedia policies I don't need to link you to again. Arrow740 (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Muslim conquest.

I found a few of the sections POV and slightly misleading. Akbar was in some ways an absorber of local cultures and in some ways was the opposite. The section also ignores the fact that invading Muslims labeled the followers of Indian religion Kafirs, and most at some point in time aimed and acted towards eliminating native practices in the common goal of establishing Islamic states. If you can provide sourced statements or sources from which you derive your conclusion intended to summarize all of the subject matter, I can't oppose it. KBN (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page number

Hi I'd like to know the page number of the source on Muslim conquest so I can have a look at it. Cheers KBN (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infidel

Salam (peace),

Just some friendly advice: try to revert less on the article, and engage in discussion more. In the end, permanent change will come about through discussion, not through reverting.Bless sins (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't follow your reasoning. clearly, Infidel has more than just a Roman Catholic meaning. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continued here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reconquista

Look, if you don't defend your edits in the talkpage of the article Reconquista I will improve the article as I see fit and proper. And I'm not obliged to ask before reverting something. Flamarande (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for sockpuppeteering. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:29, 16 June 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).

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

Request reason:

With all due to respect to Josh Gordon and yourself, I am sure there is a reasoning and action that was seen to be correct, however it remains that an error has occurred. I am a long standing editor with a long history of editing, and have as a matter of course been involved in content disputes and edit wars on various articles, primarily dealing with Islamic history, and do not really need to resort to sockpuppets to deal with such issues. While I see that Salikk has been working on Islam related articles, I really do not see the similarity as he appears to show little interest in historical articles. I respectfully, ask you to re-review and reconsider, Salikk is not my sockpuppet.

Decline reason:

CheckUser evidence and edit history suggests otherwise.— OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:44, 18 June 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I wasn't around to defend myself during the earlier event as I was away during that period having had to take a sabbatical due to real-life circumstances, and have even been unaware of it entirely seeing as it was not even noted on my page by the blocking admin, regardless I will have to deal with that as well now it would seem. Prior history can only be a reference to user:Shamiana who is real-life friend and having reviewed meatpuppets I can see the problem there and even accept and deal with it. For the record even in that instance the previous block was not about gaming the system to avoid 3RR, the complaint filed was on the perception that I appeared to be continuing to edit on other articles[6]. I do however see some resets and extensions in my log which appears to be caused because of an IP edit [7](there are lots of other edits from it as well which cannot be attributed to my pattern at all, and this is because it's someone else from a same service provider that I no longer subscribe to) which again in noway relate to using sockpuppets to conduct an edit war. As for behavioral 3RR gaming on the article Infidel the only time mine and Salikks could fit that definition is on only one possible instance on the 13th June. Do note that over an extended period of being engaged in a revert war on the article I had not even come close to 3RR and the one time that I veered close on the 13 June, I did not revert Jayg in order to avoid violating it. I hope this clarifies that there is no history of me using sockpuppets/meatpuppets to game the system to violate 3RR as propsed by admin jgordon. In this case it is more likely another user with the same service provider.

Decline reason:

Per jpgordon's response below. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:20, 19 June 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

It's a mistake. I am puzzled, I don't even see any checkuser requests or accusations. At anyrate if no one wants to go on a limb to overturn jpgordons decision can someone atleast put a timer on this.

Decline reason:

Not a mistake. The technical evidence is strong and correctly interpreted. I fully endorse an indefinite block. Please stop making spurious unblock requestsSam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:24, 2 July 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 left a note for Jpgordon, asking if he could explain anything about the sockpuppet accusation. -- Ned Scott 07:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I said: Tigeroo has a history of sockpuppeteering to game 3RR. Take a look at his block log. The technical CU evidence was strong that he was doing it again, and in combination with the behavioral evidence was convincing. Enough is enough. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, having engaged in edits wars and violated 3RR yes, I have been guilty but I do not have a history of sockpuppeteering to game 3RR as noted above.--Tigeroo (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Unblock|I request an unblock to allow me to resume making productive contributions to the wikipedia project. I have had time to cool off and reflect on my past behavior and pledge to conduct myself in a constructive manner within the bounds of proper behavior.|Daniel Case (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

Through a little sleuthing, the second account in question appears to be User:Salikk. I am not sure if there are any others. Dekimasuよ! 15:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tigeroo, consider jpgordon's comment. I feel free to give you another shot, but if you go back to your old tricks you will not only be blocked again, you will have exhausted the community's patience, with all that implies. Do you understand this? Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. Thank you, I will keep the faith shown by you and I will exercise restraint.--Tigeroo (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

This is your last chance

Request handled by: Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.