User talk:Zeno of Elea

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Translation

Just wondering, how did you translate that little bit I posted? Your translation came up really botched.Yuber^(talk) 03:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An RfA for your consideration

I thought that this might interest you: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#BrandonYusufToropov -- Stereotek 19:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yuber on Jihad

You may strongly want to take a look at Jihad. Yuber is up to his old tricks.Enviroknot 23:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good grief... --Chanting Fox 23:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That was my thought, Charlie Brown. It hasn't been unprotected a day yet and he and "Anonymous editor" are pushing POV edits again.Enviroknot 00:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yet another reason why I should keep my mouth shut... --Chanting Fox 00:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scare quotes

On a copyeditors' mailing list I read there's been much discussion of scare quotes. Those are quotes put around a word to indicate that it's being used under protest, or ironically. Frex, "Fred Smith claimed that he "invented" the mousetrap" or "Sally Bimbo wore a "fashionable" garment of tinsel and pink fur". The copyeditors feel that this is a current fad, and a cheap stunt. There are better ways to indicate one's displeasure. You have been sprinkling scare quotes liberally over the United Submitters article and the cumulative effect is snark. I agree that there is much that is snarkable in their beliefs and I'm just as dubious as you are <g>. However, if we're writing encyclopedia articles we have to keep a straight face. You can remove the scare quotes or I can. After you, Alphonse! Zora 1 July 2005 07:48 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the article as you see fit. --Zeno of Elea 1 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)

Hi Zeno

1) Fill in your user page so that it is not a red tab 2) keep up the good work --Urchid 3 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)

I am collecting evidence of sockpuppetry and vandalism

....and plan to file arbitration proceedings against you very shortly. BrandonYusufToropov 03:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

great. --Zeno of Elea 03:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it's taking you quite a while to collect your "evidence." i wonder why. --Zeno of Elea 12:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zeno, that same jihadist guy tries to smear others too by misusing the Wikipedia arbitration system, such as user:Strider and I. Don't get intimidated. He and Axon already put me on a VfD [1] for spurious reasons. --Germen (Talk | Contribs

) 12:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BYT and the "poll"

I notice he's created a faked "poll" here [2] and sent messages out to his cronies to try to drum up a false "consensus" [3] [4] [5] on the "poll."

He also is convinced that you, I, Ni-ju-Ichi, and quite apparently anyone who doesn't agree that "NPOV" means "Whitewash Islam wherever possible and only the whitewashed version of Islam that BYT learned is 'correct' despite centuries of Islamic jurispridence" are all the same person.

It's very laughable, but it does appear to be a major hindrance in making sure that these articles are both accurate and NPOV.

If you want to file a Request for Arbitration or Request for Comment against him for this behavior, I would be more than happy to support you in it.Existentializer 15:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just FYI, this lunatic [6] also seems to be involved. Regrettably he's an administrator. Given his behavior when BYT was reported for 3RR violations as "EnviroFuck" I have no doubt he will be looking for any excuse to abuse his powers, please be careful.Existentializer 15:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He's now up to more of it: [7] [8] [9]

[10][11][12][13] This is patently absurd, no way could any result of this poll be a "consensus." All the same, if you know anyone you wish to invite to post there, please do so. You have been here longer than I and likely know better who to inform.Existentializer 15:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User page vandalized

Just an FYI, I've had to clean off the user page of Ni-ju-Ichi this morning. Some anonymous IP vandal had tagged it with a "I think this is a sockpuppet" tag, probably IrishPunkTom or one of BYT's cronies since they seem to love throwing that accusation around anytime someone doesn't vote in lock-step with them.

I am considering filing a grievance against BYT and his crew, but I'm not sure the best way to go about it.Existentializer 16:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:BrandonYusufToropov#Sorry_to_disapoint.... It appears that BYT asked User:Heraclius to collect evidence that User:Ni ju ulchi and I are "sock puppets." The sockpuppet tagging of the user page is probably related. I don't know how the arbcom works either, but I'm hoping BYT follows through on his promise to file arbitration against me. --Zeno of Elea 17:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If he does, I'll be very happy to speak on your behalf or file a counter-arbitration. This behavior by the Holy Warrior Brigade shouldn't be tolerated and it's completely obvious. After re-reading the request for arbitration filed against Yuber, I'm scared that the Wikipedia authorities have let them get away with all this crap.Existentializer 18:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am in with this. Wikipedia should not be degraded to a battleground for those cyber jihadis. --Germen (Talk | Contribs

) 12:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If BrandonYusufToropov does in fact take this to ArbCom, I'll also add a statement and some diffs, especially regarding his personal attack violations, on the Muhammad and Jihad articles talk page. However, it should be said that the most important thing in these cases is never to make any serious violations any of Wikipedias policies. Don't ever call anybody ANYTHING, because when it arrive at an RfC or at the ArbCom won't hurt those opposing you, it'll only hurt yourself. The ArbCom is all about violations of policies, and diffs that prove that these has indeed been violated. In this case I can understand why BYT's sitzkrieg is taking it's time. Zeno haven't violated any policies and has quite frankly made some excellent NPoV contributions. Anyway, as a suggestion, I think it might be worth considering getting an Members' advocate that can help you to present the case in the most efficient way. -- Karl Meier 14:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of wikifighting is a chess game, with goal being to see who makes the first mistake first. It's critically important to keep your nose clean if you want to make a good case when this or anything else hits RfC/ArbCom. If you look at what wins/loses at Arbcom, the losing side always has lots of violations of wikipolicies, typically from the early hot stages of an edit war. If you avoid 3RR, Personal attacks, and obvious crude behavior, you'll be more or less untouchable in ArbCom. Your actions can be defended as agressive and bold editing. If you can show that your editing isn't disruptive, while the other side's is. You win. Klonimus 11:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's frustrating dealing with the islamists, because they have a few admins sympathetic to their side, and they tend not to be too obvious, but at the end of the day, Muslim apologetics can usually be shown to violate Policy and the efforts to keep can be shown to be disruptive. This is kind of like tax or labor law, where there is lots of room to make defensable cases in between lines of policy. Klonimus 11:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Family problems

... and pretty serious ones, I'm afraid. So I'm taking wiki-break. (Check my user contribss.) I have no crew, I promise, and I don't know anything abt vandalization of those pages. Prayers, pls. Back eventually. BrandonYusufToropov 14:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear, BYT. --Zeno of Elea 20:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive and Defensive

I honestly don't care if you're from FFI or you're an anti-Muslim user. But I still see no rational reason for dividing the article into offensive and defensive jihad and putting it in a category of Islamic justification for violence. At least keep your POV'ing in one article.Heraclius 22:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not from FFI nor am I "anti-Muslim." The jihad article was reduced into smaller sub-articles based on consensus. Offensive and defensive Jihad are two seperate subjects, that warrent their own articles. And I did not add the category designation, someone else did that. --Zeno of Elea 01:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SIIEG

Hello, while your proposal of SIIEG seems like a good idea, I get the feeling the various groups of Islamic editors aren't going to stand for it... respectfully I decline. If it looks like it is functioning as intended instead of simply drawing fire from editors like Farhansher, please let me know.Ni-ju-Ichi 03:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i don't see what you mean by "aren't going to stand for it." it does not violate any Wikipedia policies, as far as i know. i also don't see how it can "draw fire" from other editors. what will someone like Farhansher do? vandalize the SIIEG pages? everything will be done in the open, and I believe that this is a good-faith effort that you should join. --Zeno of Elea 03:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

I believe dab is referring to any link to FFI, mainly the one to the links page to replace the DMOZ. Not just a link to the main page. gren 10:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OH, i see. --Zeno of Elea 10:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SIEEG-"The Prophet" Muhammad

Just left a note on the SIEEG talk page about one issue that I've thought about in the past. I think SIEEG is a good and worthy idea, if handled as you've suggested...abiding by Wikipedia protocols of civility, et cetera. I can be a bit bitchy at times, but would make a special point of holding that in check when working on any SIEEG efforts. As I said, I really don't know how much time I'll be having, but I'll contribute as I can. Anyway, interested in any feedback on the idea I floated on the talk page. Babajobu 13:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islam

hi Zeno. the projected poll outcome increases my acceptance of linking the ffi links page. However, not 'every registered user' may vote. It's a strawpoll to gauge community opinion. Sockpuppets do not count. Also, accounts with a record of ten reverts and nothing else hardly count as members of the community. The election of the board was restricted to editors with 400 edits. You will note that I applied the same criteria to both parties. dab (ᛏ) 07:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD pollution

Ril enlisted Persecution by Muslims for VfD again, just 24 hours after the article withstood the first VfD. You might be interested to watch it. [14] --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of engagment

Zeno. You seem to be intelligent and have a well trained critical mind that is good for writing articles. Your conduct, attitude and interactions with those who disagree with you falls short of that by quite a bit. Please stop the uneeded and harful combativeness, ruleslawyering, defensive and offensive commentary and tactics that you are employing, deliberatly or not.--Tznkai 14:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need to be lectured on Wikipedia rules. If you feel that I have violated Wikipedia policy, please specify what policies and provide evidence in the form of diffs. --Zeno of Elea 14:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisly my point. This is not just about rules and policy, this is about the writers rule of engagement. Wikipedia only works with a community of editors working together civilly. You have been less than polite and certainly could do much more to get along with others. Play nice.--Tznkai 14:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have been polite and civil. If you feel otherwise, please feel free to provide evidence. In the meantime, please note that your unfounded, belittling comments are hardly in line with your own advice. --Zeno of Elea 14:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of hypocracy. Dismissal of conflicting opinions as fundamentalist Islam. Thats just within the last two minutes.--Tznkai 14:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you are guilty of hypocracy as you are demonstrating, and believe it or not, those who oppose the inclusion of the cresent moon as a symbol of Islam in Template:Islam do so because of their fundamentalist beliefs against bidah (innovation, change, etc). If you read the Template:Islam talk page, you will see them explain that the cresent moon was supposedly not used during Muhammad's time, so Wikipedia should not include it. This is despite the fact that over a dozen Muslim countries include their symbol in their flags, and the symbol appears at the holy mosque of the Kabba in Mecca. It is the universally recognized symbol of Islam, there is no question about it. It is an objective fact that Muslims oppose this due to fundamentalist beliefs of a puritanical nature, and it is really the Salafis (i.e. Wahabis) who are famous for opposing the cresent moon symbol. --Zeno of Elea 15:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The truth value of your statements is irrelivant to your conduct.--Tznkai 15:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

mathematical/scientific definition of god

you can't have a "mathematical definition of god" anymore than you can have a "scientific definition of god"

From my vantage point you can, and all in one, single definition: the personification of infinity. El_C 18:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is as "mathematical" a concept as numerology is. --Zeno of Elea 18:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The sweet embrace of mathematical abstractions, demystified? With utmost care and clarity. El_C 19:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Islam

I just noticed that you have added the IslamSymbol.png to the Template:Islam 4 times within 24 hours. I suspect that some might very well be interested in using this fact to get you banned for 24 hrs, under the 3 revert rule. As a suggestion, I think you might want to revert you own most recent change regarding this, in order to avoid such actions. I'll just add it again right after you remove it. -- Karl Meier 21:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that, but decided that this wasn't really a revert. My latest edit creates a novel situation of having the symbol but not having the Jihad link, and not having "Fundamental Principals" link to "Five Pillars of Islam." I also changed the color scheme. I don't think it's much to worry about, especially since the main edit warrior, User:Heraclius, has stopped defending of his edit war in the discussion page. --Zeno of Elea 21:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the discussion page it should be pretty obvious to anyone who is making the unexplained, abusive reverts. However, it's not required that the reverts should identical to be a technical violation of the 3rr. If you insist on any change 4 times within 24 hrs you'll most likely be blocked. Or atleast, that is how I've seen it being practiced until now. -- Karl Meier 22:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There you go I am afraid... -- Karl Meier 22:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crescent. The inclusion of the crescent as compared to Christian cross are different. In terms of theology Jesus' death is a necssity to all Christian groups that I know. The crescent isn't, it's just a symbol without the same theological value. I personally believe that Allah in Arabic is more important because it is widely used on Muslim pendants and art (calligraphy being important) and God is obviously theologically significant and so is the use of Arabic. I think it's wrong to include for a few reasons the first being that the template is bloated enough in the first place. Also, just because something is recognizable doesn't make it correct or good... there is contention about this issue and admittedly some of it is because your history of creating controversy whether you have meant it or not. I understand many of your other edits trying (even if I disagree) as trying to rid Islamic articles of apologetics. This, however strangely seems to be you just towing the line of anti-Islamic groups... the crescent as the symbol, Hubal... I understand that you think the crescent might be acceptable, but I'd think so is Allah in calligraphy.... why is it a symbol you think is of overriding importance? You know that a bunch of the editors are wary about how you act... and things like this and... well, I don't think you're making the best case for yourself. gren グレン 23:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that this debate should go to Template:Islam --Zeno of Elea 19:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were to you specifically. I had no need to repeat all of that to others. gren グレン 12:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Existentializer

Don't look now, but it appears BrandonYusufToropov's allies have [15] started accusing people at random of being "sockpuppets" once more. I've already had my own page vandalized once, I expect to see it again.Ni-ju-Ichi 04:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct Warning Two.

Your conduct on Template:Islam is combative, inflammitory, and counter productive. However strongly you feel about the truth of your statements, you must assume good faith and understand we are all trying to make a better article. You clearly have a very strong POV. I can't figure out exactly what the hell it is, but it seems to be interfering with your good judgement. Keep it up and you will probably end up in a spot of trouble. I am doing you the courtesy of pointing this out to you on your talk page instead of on article talk pages. This is not an attack, this is an observation of the effects of your actions. Please cease and desist.--Tznkai 02:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adding valid references is assumed to be a inflammatory. I would appreciate when Muslim sensitivity towards others would approach Muslim sensitivity towards themselves.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WivesMuhammad

I thought you'd comment on that talk page but you didn't... so I'll ask you here. I made two changes. Firstly the colors... which I don't think will be a problem (purple was Christian for a reason). Secondly I changed consorts back to wives. Well, you can read it all on that talk page but I want to make sure you're okay with my changes... or tell me why you had consort... it didn't make sense to me and it was never explained there. gren グレン 02:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grenavitar, Muhammad had several sex slaves, e.g. Maria the Copt and propably Raihana, which did not qualify like a wife. I agree with Zeno that consort is a good word to summarize both wifes and sex slaves.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please don't forget to comment your changes

Hi, please don't forget to comment your changes, i.e. on Criticism_of_Islam, else it's tedious to check what you did. --Marek Moehling 14:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WivesMuhammad

Well, I do not know what the Muslim take on this is. If they are typically called wives or not. Concubine would only be used in a pejorative sense... and since they are mostly listed under Muhammad's marriages it seems odd to have it different in the template. What do notable texts calls these ladies -- Islamic and secular literature? I am thinking that maybe "Muhammad's Harem" is a decent choice... because... is it denied in traditions that he had such access to these people? Harem also has a pejorative connotation but... I think people would hopefully know what it means. In any case I believe you should ask around some and you will have to move the template to whatever is decided upon. gren グレン 10:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad

I thought that maybe you could take a look at the jihad article? Dab is promoting the (I must say) rather strange idea that Ali ibn Tahir al-Sulami was behind the concept of jihad as warfare, and claim that jihad as warfare didn't exist before him (!) He also claim that his calls for military jihad was what he call "avant garde". Most recently, he even suggested that the "jihad as holy war" section should be merged into the Offensive Jihad article... -- Karl Meier 17:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

An anon user posted the following to your user page

THESE PICTURES OF THE PROPHET ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE SHARIA WHICH SAYS NOT TO HAVE ANY PICTURES OF ANY PROPHET OR LIVING THING SO HOW COULD YOU TRANSGRESS THESE LAWS AND OFFEND ME THIS WAY!! SOURCE:ISLAMIC SHARIAH AND HADITH

Apparently this user feels that Wikipedia is governed by shariah. Anyway, I took the liberty of reverting it. Nice miniature by the way, where did you find it? --Briangotts (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation on Rules of war in Islam

You have been blocked for twenty-four hours for violation of the three revert rule on the article Rules of war in Islam. If you have any questions on this block, please contact another administrator via mailing list or email. Please refrain from edit wars when you return. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:49, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Din (Arabic term)

zeno, I would like your opinion on Din (Arabic term). Heraculis is having fits with it and will not allow even the statements of muslims to be quoted. I do have an email given with my account. You can email me your opinions if you like. Nickbee 05:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee[reply]

zeno, please may I have your opinion on Apostasy_in_Islam page. Heraclius is having another one of his rv wars there. I do not mind making it concise but Heraclius wants to take out quotes and information that is important and demostrative of the problem. Nickbee 18:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

zeno, I have asked for third opinion on the dispute with Heraclius at Talk: Din (Arabic term). I will appreciate your opinion on the matter. Thank you Nickbee 19:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Please do not describe the edits of User:68.84.185.85 on Islamophobia as vandalism. They are not, see Wikipedia:Vandalism. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:03, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism

BYT put my article on this informative book up for VfD, I'd be honored if you'd take a look at the article and its VfD and share your opinions. Thanks. User:Klonimus/AINB Klonimus 07:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two more for your considderation

Also on VfD. I don't know if you've put my User:Klonimus/AINB on your watchlist, but I'm trying to create a central project to deal with apologetics and whitewashing on wikipedia and also to act as a notcieboard for VfD's etc. It's a major nuisance trying to mobilize people for VfD's, since so few people have time to waste on watching VfD.

Anyways here's two more books, on VfD, and these books are both 25,000+ on amazon.com. Btw I agree with you about BYT, deleting criticism of Islam won't make it go away. I'd be happy to work with you on an article about nazism and Islam

Klonimus 07:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muftism

Check this link out, http://notendur.centrum.is/~snorrigb/holoc.htm and click on muftism, a very good introduction to our mutual friend. Looking at the length and content makes me think this is an Senior Paper, it should be a good start for a future article.

Also see this linl to an adress by Bibi, before the UN commitee on the inalienable rights of the palestinian people, it mentions the mufti quite a bit and gives some good context. I assume UN-cruft is Public domain so probably portions of it could be put in as well.

BTW: thanks for your support in the recent VfD's, the desire of some people to whitewash WP of anything that might make islam look bad is quite sad.

Klonimus 03:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Desi

Why did you delete most of the information in the Desi article? It is not 'totally wrong'.

Arun 16:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Islam

Uh. You see Zenor. I changed it from Directories of pro-Islamic sites to Directories of responses to critcism. I reworded based on the fact that pro-Islamic was not the issue and that responses to criticism was. Your tone made me cry. gren グレン 03:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice revert

Just wanted you to know I agree with your efforts to maintain encyclopedic tone and objectivity here [[16]]. BrandonYusufToropov 14:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protection

Zeno of Elea, while I understand your frustrations, remember that page protection is not an endorsement of the current page. In addition, it is inevitable that The Wrong Version will always be protected. I protected the page on a request at WP:AN. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you want to request unprotection, you should put the request in the unprotection section. :-) --Nlu 07:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Irishpunktom has started vandalizing Dhul-Qarnayn to make some kind of a point. If he continue to insist on that kind of disruptions, then I actually think someone should report his questionable behavior. -- Karl Meier 15:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template_talk:Islam#Criticism_of_Islam

You were discussing here and then you and Karl seemed to drop out of the picture. I've tried to get a broader range of view since it's a topic that has relevance to other religions' templates yet all discussion seems to have died. Just curious if you were planning on pursuing that more. We don't always agree (in case you didn't know) but, it seems odd that this issue was just dropped. gren グレン 05:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a vandal

Referring to edits you don't like as vandalism, is of itself a form of vandalism. Don't be a vandal.--Irishpunktom\^talk 10:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the second time, Referring to edits you don't like as vandalism, is of itself a form of vandalism. Don't be a vandal--Irishpunktom\^talk 11:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stay!

Zeno, Wikipedia would be much poorer without you. Even if some of your material gets removed, you change the equilibrium here and make a real difference. Please stay! Babajobu 16:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep WP needs you, alot. Your'e one of my favorite editors here. I know that it can get very frustrating sometimes, at the end of the day truth alone triumphs. Klonimus 05:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Eventhough I understand you decision, I'd still wish you would come back. We need good editors opposing the PoV pushing trolls around here, and as you already know, you are one of the best editors doing that. -- Karl Meier 12:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Esperanza.Fhloston.jpg

stressed? come visit Esperanza

Although not quite agreeing with your tactics, I think you do valuable work. so please don't leave, I know it can be very frustrating in the beginning sometimes, but it will work it out. Gryffindor 17:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor

Thought you might be interested in the this. Klonimus 05:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor

I have reverted your edits on this RfA because they were made after Durin closed it. Feel free to add them to the talk page if you would still like your view to be seen, however as of now that page is meant to be an archive of sentiment at the time of closing and not continuously update. gren グレン 12:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Paris riots

You seem to be undoing the cleanup that I did and I'm tempted to revert your last twenty edits. I deleted redundant references and characterizations. For seem reason you removed the bold-faced text to the title...why are you doing dewikifying the article..??... freestylefrappe 04:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are deleting critical information and pushing your POV. That wasn't just a bold faced title, it was a bold faced lie. You declared the riots over when they have not yet ended. 2005 Paris riots covers a current and ongoing riot, and as such it cannot begin with your "The 2005 Paris riots lasted from X date to the early mornings of Y date." Wikipedia is not a propoganda machine. When the riot is over you can change the intro to "The 2005 Paris riots lasted from X date to the early mornings of Y date..." Besides that, if you want to insert a bold face title somewhere then do so without deleting information regarding the the fact that the riots have occured for six consecutive nights thus far. Furthermore, If you revert the last 20 edits then you will be vandalizing the article. I have explained all of my edits. You have explained none of yours. I do not know nor do I care who did what "clean up." If you have a specific point of objection then I suggest you somehow communicate it to the rest of us. And may I suggest that you should use the article's talk page for this purpose, and not my talk page. -- Zeno of Elea 04:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about??? Are you confusing me with Irishpunktom? I havent expressed a difference in opinion regarding the content anywhere. I thought you'd been here a while-> it's customary to boldface the title in the article - usually as the first words in the introduction. I haven't "inserted my pov" - all I did was correct grammar and remove the endless repeat characterizations of Sarkozy as the Interior Minister of France and the youths as Muslims from Northern Africa. freestylefrappe 03:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That you should question other people's edits is rather a sane thing to do, though perhaps you might want to do that in a softer tone, and perhaps adopt more courtesy in your manners (removing comments without moving them for instance).

On the other hand, calling people "extremist left-wing French sissy or a extremist fundamentalist Muslim" is completely unacceptable. I strongly suggest that you stop this sort of behaviour before other people make you. Thank you. Rama 10:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear here, your "comments" were inserted as HTML tags into the article itself. I am at liberty to remove HTML comments from an article without moving them to the discussion page. -- Zeno of Elea 10:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You probably are, but you probably understand that this could be badly interpreted. Especially when you insult other editors in the process. Rama 10:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DISCUSSION MOVED TO Talk:2005_Paris_suburb_riots#Editorializing

2005 Paris suburb riots

Thanks. I noticed my revert went to another bad version and was looking for a clean one. You beat me to it. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote and ask others to vote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ramallite

Thanks for your vote on my RFA. However, you must have me confused with somebody else. I am "Ramallite", not "Rama" (another editor). I have never edited the page you referred to in your explanation. I do have a sentence about "very little patience" on my user page (and it's within a certain context), so you clicked on the correct user page. But you have looked at somebody else's edits and have mistook them for my own. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you confused rama with ramallite. Please re-consider your vote based on Ramallite edits (see questions 5 &6) Zeq 20:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OH. -- Zeno of Elea 20:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ramallite

Zeno, you've mixed Ramallite up with Rama. See RfA page. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for withdrawing your vote and not just changing your comment, Zeno. That was decent of you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule violation

You recently violated the three-revert rule on 2005 Paris suburb riots. The offending edits were:

Per policy, you have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. Please do not revert-war in future. Thanks, Rob Church ^Talk 01:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Paris suburb riots.png

Hey, could you provide the source map for that? I presume you took a stock map and added the locations of riotting... unless you're a cartographer. In any case could you provide the source map since that would be needed to prove it can be in the public domain. gren グレン 06:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just as you do not need to be a lawyer (in theory) in order to determine the copyright status of an image, I do not need to be a cartographer in order to produce a map. I used data from the relevant article, looked up the coordinates of the locations, and then used the free online map creator http://www.planiglobe.com/. Then I took the resulting image into a photo editor and made some minor changes to the colors. You can read their terms of use for further legal details. I meant to keep a list of the locations and their coordinates but unfortunately my browser crashed and I lost that. I have released the map to the public domain. By the way, one of my fields of expertise is statistics, where I have worked a lot with geostatistical data and cartographic tools such as GIS and other software. -- Zeno of Elea 07:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on Paris Riots

Just wanted to tell you that, check out this editorial that I added to the article.

Wake up, Europe, you've a war on your hands by Mark Steyn, published in the Chicago Sun-Times November 6, 2005

I wonder if the europeans are just now waking up to what is in the words of Oriana Fallaci "Il nemico che trattiamo da amico" ("The Enemy We Treat As A Friend") Klonimus 09:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

Could you please upload images and graphs to Wikimedia Commons. That would allow them to be used in other wikimedia projects (e.g. wikipedias in different languages) --80.139.64.136 18:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005_civil_unrest_in_France&diff=prev&oldid=28183321

Please help watching that this important fact is not deleted. Thanks. Zeq 06:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch out for the 3RR 3 revert rule. don't do it. play by the rules. Better be smart than rightous. Zeq 08:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic banking

Hey, I moved that bit to the opposition section once and you reverted with no explanation. I have done it again. Please add a blurb about the opposition to the intro instead of swamping it like you had... you can't write about the opposition before you have all of the principles laid out anyways. It's funny though, because one of my first expsoures to how it worked was a NYT article about Islamic banking... I was home at the time and I looked to my mother (who ahd given me the article) and asked her... "isn't that interest by another name?" So, I haven't read over the article well, but I'm sure there has to be opposition. While in London at speaker's corner I met a Pakistani (origin) girl from South Africa and asked her about Islamic economics, and she just said they were, more or less, silly and couldn't be practiced in the World today... so, I'd say there is opposition to calling the current discource Islamic, and Muslims who think it's all silly. But, do you see my complaint about having it all right up top? gren グレン 08:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No gren, I do not accept your complaint about "having it all right up top." -- Zeno of Elea 08:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted saying "the sentence you are trying to hide". This is a matter of organization, so what sentence am I possibly trying to hide? I asked you to write some of that into the intro, the most relevany points, not the whole intro. I value that you are showing multiple sides to this issue but you're placing the argument to the thesis before the thesis. It makse the whole thing unclear. Please attempt some dialog on this issue. gren グレン 08:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Islam

Be more polite towards new users please or don't get into discussions with them. Calling him a "Muslim fanatic" is just in bad taste and hopefully he'd have the courtesy to not call you an anti-Muslim fanatic. I think we all see the problem with the vision he is proposing but... there is a way to address it, and how you have been doing it is not proper. gren グレン 07:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

youre out of line, gren. -- Zeno of Elea 08:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fred_Bauder#complete_failure_of_wikipedia_NPOV_policy

*Wikipedia:Requested moves/Islamofascism (term) – Islamofascism (term) → Islamofascism (move)

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Islamofascism (term) – Islamofascism (term) → Islamofascism (move)

New vote for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American terrorism – Article created by BrandonYusufToropov/YUBER and WikiProject:Islam Guild for no other reason than "revenge" for the Islamofascism article. See here. (User:Striver is the leader of the Islam Guild I believe...) --Chaosfeary 12:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote and discussion on moving Islamofascism (term) to Islamofascism moved to Talk:Islamofascism (term)

Vote and discussion on moving Islamofascism (term) to Islamofascism moved to Talk:Islamofascism (term) - Just so you know. --Chaosfeary 12:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote and discussion on moving Islamofascism (term) to Islamofascism moved to Talk:Islamofascism (term)

Vote and discussion on moving Islamofascism (term) to Islamofascism moved to Talk:Islamofascism (term) - Just so you know. --Chaosfeary 12:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-summary attacks

Zeno, please do not use the fact that someone is on probation as an excuse to undermine them. [17] If a probationer acts in a way that violates the probation, contact an admin, but otherwise don't remind them of it. Arbcom rulings are not sticks to beat people with. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Muhammad

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. Nandesuka 15:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna help out?

Hi Zeno.

There is this page that has been sabotaged lately by Zora. I'm practically sick of her insisting on her historical revisionism. I'd flush her out on my own if time permitted me to spend more hours on WP than I already am. I thought you might wanna help out with it. If so, here's the synopsis of what's been going on:

The article is the Islamic conquest of Iran.
It is a controversial article by nature because:
- There is a plethora of sources that document how Islam was spread in Persia by sword and blood.
- There is a vast spectrum of records that document racist policies implemented against Iranians by the Umayyid Arabs after the invasion.
There has been an ongoing movement to be "politically correct" by some (in your own words) "apologist" editors in concealing or downplaying this history.
Zora is spearheading this campaign of misinformation.
She refuses to accept any opposing edits or editors by calling them "Persian nationalist", even though the majority of records and authors are not even Persian.

If you choose not to participate, hey that's totally cool.

PS: Just in case youre wondering about my background and roll in all this, I'm an Iranian American with Shia Sufist tendencies. I beleive that the Islam practiced today is totally fucked up and needs some serious re-thinking.--Zereshk 02:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Bahen center.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bahen center.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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 media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Longhair 09:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We must talk!

Zeno of Elea: I have a very important message for you regarding your idea of a project you gave in November 2005. Is there any way to contact you privately, like an email address? If you would like me to give you my email, let me know and I will write it here (I will make a new email for you). If you would like to hear from me again, let me know here by editing my comment. Dragontail 16:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you.[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Mandelbrot.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mandelbrot.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then 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 want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo.

Image copyright problem with Image:Abbasid.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Abbasid.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 12:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Crescent moon.gif)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Crescent moon.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Fields.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Fields.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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 media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 23:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:2005france graph.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:2005france graph.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified 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 media 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 qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then 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 media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 11:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gambling payouts

Sorry for the 3-year-late reply, but I just now saw your post you made on the Dutch book talk page. Winnings are paid out differently based on the horse's odds. Just to put this in a simpler perspective, a bookie would pay you out more on an NFL bet if (for instance) you bet on the Redskins beating the Patriots, and you won that bet. Naturally (given current standings, as of 2008) the Patriots would have the better odds than the Redskins would, so if you had bet on the Patriots and they won, the Patriots would have been considered the "favorite," therefore wouldnt have paid much... due to the fact that they would be a near-obvious win.

I say this from my experience as being a teller at an off-track betting facility.

Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:World map isidore.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:World map isidore.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:47, 8 February 2010 (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) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]