User talk:Amibidhrohi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

Welcome!

Hello Amibidhrohi, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some good places to get you started!

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please be sure to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or just three tildes (~~~) to produce your name only. If you have any questions, or are worried/confused about anything at all, please either visit the help desk, or leave a new message on my talk page at any time. Happy editing, good luck, and remember: Be Bold!

FireFox 19:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Wives of Muhammad

Hi Amibidhrohi, and welcome to Wikipedia! You seem very knowledgeable about Islam, and I therefore wondered if you would mind taking a look at Template:WivesMuhammad. There's a discussion going on at Template talk:WivesMuhammad regarding which of the women were wives and which not, and whether the header on it should be "wives of Muhammad," "women known as wives of Muhammad," or "consorts of Muhammad." It would be very helpful if you could leave your opinion on the talk page if you have time. And welcome again. It's good to have you with us. ;-) Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

CNN

Please desist from reverting and rewriting the CNN article with a major POV slant. I've blocked you for another 31 hours. --Celestianpower háblame 21:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely incompetent. I'll ask you what I asked before: Did you even bother reading WHY I'm editing the CNN page? The two people whom you've sided with are adding allegations to claim CNN has a pro-liberal bias; they're essentially adding what amounts to "original research", their cited sources do not actually make the allegations they've posted on the entry. The POV here is not MINE. I've edited the article to reflect both my claims that CNN failed to cover the pre-war intelligence properly (a controversy acknowleged BY CNN reporters, and those of their claims that are supported by the sources. How about you tell me exactly what my POV slant is? I'm only slanted towards having the article reflect factually accurate information. This is the second time you've banned me, though you've shown nothing to suggest you're even conscious as to what's going on in the page.You could have posted a line or two on the discussion page before taking such offensive action. You could have attempted speaking to me via e-mail or my talk page. You're not a participant in the CNN discussion page and you haven't made any edits to the article recently. You're incompetent.Amibidhrohi 22:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

A more detailed response to the 31 hr bans:

My justifications for deleting that mess on the CNN page is detailed on the CNN talk page. POV is a secondary concern when the information added constitutes original research and their sources do not support the text being posted on the entry. I've kept everything that is backed by a reasonably cited source on the page.

Until I began editing the entry, the heading sentence that precedes the allegations (under bullets) read:

"CNN has come under criticism by conservatives for alleged liberal bias. Critics have claimed that CNN's reporting contains liberal editorializing within news stories, and have jokingly referred to CNN as the "Clinton News Network," the "Communist News Network," or "Clearly Not Neutral". Conservatives point to the following as evidence of the alleged bias:"

This opening sentence had been reverted to by both Ronmexico and Aaron despite its highly POV meaning. If you can't see the POV in that, well...

The bullet points uder it use various sites of sources, all but one fail to imply that CNN was actually baised.

I removed that opening sentence because of its POV nature and those bulleted points under it that were constructed from the original research of the WP editors who added them. How is my removing them amounting to POV? When one of the claims from that list were finally backed by a source that actually made the allegation posted on the WP entry, the Lou Dobbs paragraph, I kept it, along with the opening line.

I added one other allegation that amounted to criticism levied by the another side (not necessarily liberal), that being that critics claim the media, including CNN, dealt with the Bush administrative with 'kid gloves' (quoting the article cited) after the 9-11 tragedy, and particularly in dealing with pre-war intelligence. In the paragraph I added, I didn't even make a claim that this amounted to bias of any kind, but rather intimidation of CNN. How is that 'highly POV'?

I'd like to phrase my understanding in a nicer tone, but since accuracy trumps niceness...Ronmexico and Aaron are so delusional under their political ideological allegiance that anything that claims anything other than that CNN is part of some liberal cabal amounts to POV. My very last post before you had me banned included most of their allegations in addition to mine. Not because I felt the information they stand behind is any more credible than before, but merely as a compromise. If having the article being 100% credible isn't an option, 50% credible and 50% rubbish will just have to do. And you STILL blocked me.

As for Celestianpower, as an NPOV admin, I hope you wouldn't mind telling me whom I'd have to consult over having your administrative powers revoked. You're a poor administrator here, not up to the task of handling disputes on Wikipedia. You didn't participate on the CNN page, you didn't ask me about my edits, you didn't warn me regarding the block. You've shown nothing to demonstrate you were aware of the conflict on the entry, much less that you're a credible authority to be silencing people on the basis of your findings. You're incompetent. Amibidhrohi 18:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

CNN controversies and allegations of bias

Your article has been moved to CNN controversies and allegations of bias since "Controversies and allegations of bias" is not very specific. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours

Amibidhrohi: I have blocked you for 48 hours for your excessive personal attacks and harassment against User:Celestianpower. Your language and comments are not acceptable during Wikipedia discussion and debate. While you may have differing opinions, this does not give you the right to uncivil behavior. I urge you to read Wikipedia policies concerning these matters:

Please contribute constructively with other Wikipedia editors when you return. Thank you. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 18:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. Finally a block on actual grounds. No contest. Everyone I've talked to pretty much reassured me that the RfC is a useless exercise, so I stuck to addressing the offender directly. Of course, I knew eventually that'd get me in another block. So no ill will on this. I'll pass on reading the Wikijunk though. Wikipedia is a game. Nothing about the admins qualify them to be in their position other than popular support, whatever the grounds. A few admins I've come across aren't even up to the task of making unbiased reviews of literature and editing properly. The admin you say I'm harassing (in the interest of not making a personal criticism, I won't name him) is an exceptionally bad example, and if you'd review the whole situation including all my commentary of the matter, you'll know. But of course, you probably wont. You're welcome. Amibidhrohi 19:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Harassment. --Celestianpower háblame 19:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
As a clarification, I would like to note that I didn't block you for making commentary on the article in question. It was statements like "You're a fucking retard" that led me to institute the block. Please email me if you would like to discuss this, or any other Wikipedia issue, further. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 19:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
That particular comment was from an e-mail I sent him to his gmail account. He chose to copy from his account and post that e-mail on his talk page. I know it seems pretty harsh, but I do get a bit angry when someone puts a sum of 62 hours of blocks on me without giving me the benefit of explaining myself. Not to mention that there is nothing in the Wikipedia rules that justify the second block (he cited POV as his reason though he later stated he felt no obligation to actually read my edits, acknowleged I didn't post more than 3 edits on the same page, and to my knowlege none of them were reverts). Anyhow, I presumed Wikipedia didn't enforce rules on communications made outside of the Wikipedia webspace. Amibidhrohi 20:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


From what I read here and in other pages, I can tell that obviously an user eager to share his knowledge with other users has gotten in the way of an extremely arrogant admin and one who can't take criticism. The thing about reverting an article can be seen from various points of view. Either you reverted the article in order to POV it or Celestianpower reverted it to delete info given by you which he/she/it didn't like. You wanted your info back on the page but Celesty didn't let you. Maybe in this case it wasn't even who started the edit war but it was him/her/it. I wished that instead of abusing your powers as an admin to start an RfC against an innocent user he/she/it would have tried to THINK first. He/she/it provoked you by first banning you twice then not answering at all when you wanted to know what he/she/it was up to, and then trying to worm around telling you why he/she/it thought his contributiion was POV. Celesty is clearly not as good an admin as he/she/it seems to think. Well, at least your account wasn't deleted. ;) --89.54.243.112 14:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- Rhobite 03:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The lack of sources is being cited as the reason for others reverting the article. I find the excuse disingenuous, but I'm adding additional sources in the interest of the article. Look through the talk page. Amibidhrohi 03:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked you [1] for WP:3RR on Ann Coulter. Please take the time off to read the rules carefully, as your comments above indicate that you have not fully understood them. William M. Connolley 12:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
You say I hope you will contact the people you block before actually blocking them next time. I always check that users have been warned; you were, above. William M. Connolley 19:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC).
Yes, before blocking as opposed to after, which is what you did. If you had bothered to contact me first and review my edits, you'd see they're not reverts, but the bolstering of my previous edits with additional sources. Amibidhrohi 20:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
You were warned; you chose to continue. Your edits were reverts; please review WP:3RR if you feel any doubt about this. In future, if you are in doubt, its better to take your proposed additions to the talk page and get a consensus there first William M. Connolley 21:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


I'm seeing all the complaints about your 3RR blocking by other users on your talk page. Is Wikipedia the place where the geeks who got beaten up in high school come to finally role-play as bullies? Amibidhrohi 22:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Amib, please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA before continuing in this line. I didn't really want to link these guidelines, as I assume you have read them, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to remind you. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
For Christ's sake, buzz off. Why isn't there a WP:Competence? Two thirds of the editors here are either severely biased or mentally disabled (out of deference to WP:CIVIL WP:NPA and WP:Be-A-Pussy I won't call them retarded), and it seems that it's from amongst their rank that admins are selected. I put 7 sources, several notable publications in which Ann Coulter's commentary was directly deemed racist. 7 sources for two Fing sentences! My entry did not directly accuse her of racism but pointed out that many people DO see her comments as racist. Totally within the standards that would be acceptable to any NPOV article. A legit bit of information to include, particularly after the "rag-head" comment. All that is deleted by one of your fellow Ann Coulter devotees. While a massive segment of people consider her to be a blatant racist, the entry does not allow the inclusion of the fact that those opinions exist. I don't suppose you'd bother to add it back in? No...You're rule of thumb is to delete anything that could be understood of lessening the credibility of Herr Coulter. Amibidhrohi 03:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Oooookay. Not exactly sure where that came from. I was just saying you may want to be careful saying things like "Is Wikipedia the place where the geeks who got beaten up in high school come to finally role-play as bullies?". I wasn't saying anything about Coulter, sources, or racism. I'm not sure why you brought that back up. I was refering to things you have said which can lead to bad places (like you being blocked or banned). No one really wants to see that happen, so I was just gently reminding you to remain calm and polite. I'm sorry you feel I was harassing you, I was only trying to help. If you really don't want me to comment here, i will respect your wishes. See you around, my friend. --LV (Dark Mark) 04:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay then..I don't want you commenting here. Amibidhrohi 04:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Amibidhrohi, nobody ever objected to you including information about charges of racism against Ann Coulter. What we objected to was you trying to make those the focus of the page. You did everything but change the page name to Ann "Racist" Coulter. There is a place for the things you wanted to include, and everybody was and remains willing to work with you on including them in a responsible manner. -Syberghost 21:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ann Racist Coulter...Hmm..That's not a bad idea. Amibidhrohi 02:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...

Well, I went back and read our little discussion from last night and have come to the conclusion that you are probably right. However, calling me disingenuous is fairly hurtful. I meant everything I said. I was pretty wrong, but I meant them. I am sorry to see you blocked for 3RR. While I admit you were probably right, you need to realise that blogs are not a "wonder source" since any moron can go out and start a blog. You also need to realise that while you were not explicitly saying "Coulter a racist", you were doing it implicitly. How can someone say racist things if they are not a racist? By labeling the section "Racist comments", you are pushing readers to a certain point of view that isn't very nice. Yes, I have no idea what Coulter is thinking, but neither do you. I think an example of what I'm trying to say is the GNAA. Is what these people say racist? Or is it just trolling? Or Lisa Lampanelli (or Denis Leary, Carlos Mencia, etc.)... is what she says racist? Or is it just comedy? I think someone can utter naughty words and still not be racist. It is the meaning behind the words that matters. Coulter's goal is to be controversial and funny (would you disagree?). She likes provoking a response from those she disagrees with (trolling). And yes, the thing about hyperbole and sarcasm should be cited. I hope we can come to an amicable solution to this. See you around, my friend. --LV (Dark Mark) 12:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed by an automated bot. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. If you feel you have received this notice in error, please contact the bot owner // Tawkerbot2 01:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Islamism

Please keep it civil. The heading A totally crap attempt at a rewrite is inappropriate. Saying "stop using the opening phrase "Islam says"" may be misunderstood as giving orders. Please do not characterise another's work as "ridiculous." Things like this can give grounds for complaint, and prevent an otherwise sound argument from being considered on its merits. Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 02:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Hamas

You have violated 3RR on the Hamas article. Please revert yourself before you are blocked, yet again, for 3RR violation. Jayjg (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You've been blocked 72 hours for violating the rule against reverting more than three times in a 24 hour period. I see you've been blocked for 3rr violations three times before, meaning you can't plead ignorance of the rule. You will find your blocks increasing from here if you continue to flaunt [The word is flout. Where did these people go to school?] the three revert rule. Please reconsider the way you are editing here. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 15:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, have fun with that. The edits I made weren't reverts, but I won't bother appealing. Amibidhrohi 01:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you'll also appreciate some views on Wikipolicies & how things get organized.

3RR violation on Hamas

Once again you have violated the 3RR rule on the Hamas article. The fact that your changes have been slightly different each time is irrelevant. Even though you have already been warned on the talk poage two reverts ago I will give you the oppurtunity to revert yourself.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


It's not 3rr. The edits are on entirely different points for entirely different purposes. Given how airheaded the admins are, they'll probably block me anyway. I only come on WP once a week anyway, so the block isn't much of a penalty for me. As long as you right-winger pro-Israel rednecks are using WP to push your propaganda, I'd rather take a block or a ban then put up with your garbage. Amibidhrohi 02:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 09:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


any help you need on 3rr's etc give me a shout saladin1970

Zionism

Hi, I've tried to come to a compromise in the dispute that's been happening on Zionism. I removed your paragraph, but replaced it with something that pointed the reader to another article that can better deal with it. You might still disagree with the content of the article it directs to, but would you be happy with removing the disputed tag from Zionism now? Nomist 16:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if the article stays this way. Thanks for finding a compromise. Amibidhrohi 19:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 01:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation on Rules of war in Islam

And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. (Quran 8:61)

We have been invited to mediate on the issue of rules of war. Pls. accept mediation here. Jazak'Allah.

Salam! You may be interested in some things here.... "tread softly and carry a big stick" (Theodore Roosevelt)... and this.

You might be interested in checking this out. You vote would be appreciated.Bless sins 11:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Muslim Guild

Are you not member of the Guild any more? I have notice that you have removed your name. Why it is so? --- Faisal 20:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll still keep an eye on the guild, and I have it on my watchlist. Certain editors here are trying to argue that my actions reflect on the entire guild, which it doesn't. I only discovered the guild page yesterday, and yet people like Timothy Usher want the entire guilt erased because of what I posted on it yesterday...I figured it's probably best I don't assume membership in it. Amibidhrohi 21:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No no. Do not worry brother. I will be happy to see you there again. We are with you. The Guild cannot be gone unless there is a consensus against it. It not only good to support the mission of the Guild but it is also good to be a member and show other that openly. Like see my User page and my post. I try to say what I feel and not care about them. --- Faisal 22:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I am going to sleep. I am thankful that you visit Dhimmi page again. When I will wake up then I will try to support you changes by possible reverts if neccessary. --- Faisal 04:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Islam and anti-Semitism

Hello Amibidhrohi, just letting you know that you are in danger of violating the 3RR on this article, if you revert again you could be blocked from editing.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I keep count of my Rs. The article is full of editorial junk. The Qur'an describing Abraham as a Muslim is anti-semitic? Aren't Jews supposed to be the decendants of Judah, who is in turn a decendant of Abraham? The dhimmi treatment of non-Muslims was harsh across the board, more so for pagans than Jews or Christians. As such, while Muslim empires might be guilty of Muslim-supremacy, the allegation that they were specifically anti-semetic is wrong. An RfC or more serious approach may be the only solution to this problem. Amibidhrohi 23:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you make only a few edits at a time. Making too many edits will confuse everyone and worsen the situatuion. I think we all should make one eidt wait for an objection, discuss on talk page, and then proceeed with caution to the next edit.Bless sins 02:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 31 hours for edit warring. Tom Harrison Talk 18:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher's user page

It's semi-protected from anons & new users. ;) —Khoikhoi 14:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone tell him that. lol. I seriously think that kid is in need of help. Or some more serious parenting. Amibidhrohi 14:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So let's see if you're editing his page and you're not a sockpuppet, relative to the statement he's made on his user page, does that mean you're a vandal? Netscott 17:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
My post wasn't relative to any statement of his other than that his user page is protected. Amibidhrohi 18:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Please don't vandalize someone's page again. AnnH ♫ 17:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism? I'm just informing him that, despite his claim, his page is not 'protected'. I don't want the kid making a fool of himself. User pages aren't the property of the user anyway, and my edit to it was an informative addition. Nothing to be labeled vandalism. Amibidhrohi 18:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Amibidhrohi, your obnoxious comment above, "I seriously think that kid is in need of help. Or some more serious parenting" is a personal attack. Personal attacks, as you're well aware, are not allowed on Wikipedia. Stop making them. Stop calling me a kid, even in the third person. And don't ever vandalize my user page again.Timothy Usher 19:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
It was helpful information, not vandalism. And being a kid is nothing to be ashamed of; I used to be one myself. Now go do your homework. Amibidhrohi 20:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow "Go do your homework", how clever, I can really tell you have a gift for wit my friend. "Go do homework", I get it, because you just said he was a kid. Just incredible, You tied both of the comments together just like that. Amazing.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Amibidhrohi, if you continue to make personal attacks, your block may be increased. I suggest you use this time thinking about working constructively with others on your return. AnnH ♫ 08:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Amibidhrohi didn't vandalize. To Amibidhrohi: What Timothy Usher (or anyone) puts on his/her page is solely his/her business. It makes no difference to wikipedia what he/she writes on his/her page. According to both the Quran and hadith, it's always better to refrain from idle talk.Bless sins 22:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Good job Amibidhrohi! Timothy Usher should first learn to respect anon editors and not to make false accusations. I doubt he has ever read personal attack. I am sure he has just made up the following strict rule to play the role of an innocent person: "the strict rule on my user talk page is, don't alter your comments after others have responded to them" He has done his homework well. 70.231.233.118 03:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't consider myself Muslim. Though I was raised Muslim, I don't really believe in the religion, and I have a particular frustration with the Muslim people generally. To be honest, I think Muslims do tend to stand out as the most apathetic and cold hearted people amongst religions and nations. They're pathetic. That's my personal sentiment, so I hope nobody takes offense to it. I would be grateful if you didn't use Qur'an or Hadith to attempt regulating my behavior here. I do see an clear effort here to smear Islam and all things regarding Muslims, and I feel that kind of bigotry needs to be handled. In the spirit of being fair and neutral, not Muslim solidarity as Timothy had put it. It's unfortunate, but I suppose a testament to their uselessness that, that most Muslims don't care enough to address problems such as the rising movement of bigotry against them. I've participatd both in critisizing Islam, particularly the philosophies and actions of Islamist organizations, and defending it when I felt information was being arranged, malevolently, with the intent of pushing the anti-Muslim POV - mostly because the Muslims can't be trusted to speak for themselves. Amibidhrohi 22:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Most Muslims don't care enough to address problems such as the rising movement of bigotry against them because the few who realize this fail to illuminate others. Now who is guilty? ;) 70.231.233.118 03:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've taken the trouble to wake a few people up. What response? Nothing. The Jews took note, and have taken every measure to stop me. They're an active bunch of snots. Why do I bother? Because I'm brown skinned and have an arabic-ish sounding name. I'm grouped with this world community of imbeciles whether I like it or not. For islamophobes life is quite easy. Persecuting Muslims is as easy as hunting bison. Why do Noam Chomskys need to speak in their defense? Why do liberal anglos need to speak up for Muslim rights? Why are Muslims reliant on Western media to speak out on their behalf? Muslims used to rule over nations. Now Muslims carry on as if they'd been castrated by the West. Ami Bidhrohi 04:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think one problem is that I, as a typical Muslim, don't know anything about it (and I am still confused actually). Can you please give me the link for the Noam Chomskys's talk? Thanks. 70.231.233.118 04:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's never too late to learn. Noam Chomsky is a political thinker (amongst many things), not a religious one. He does speak often on Palestine though. You could try looking up his books, he's written quite a few. You can also find videos of his out there. Good stuff. Ami Bidhrohi 05:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, why don't you write a section about it on the talk page of The Muslim Guild? (In more details of course ;) ) 70.231.233.118 04:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That wouldn't really be worth the trouble. I come here now and then, I'm not a consistent Wikiphile. I don't see why Muslims these days are so docile. Ami Bidhrohi 05:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've lengthened you block to one week. Tom Harrison Talk 13:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE

NOTICE Amibidhrohi has returned as User:His excellency.Timothy Usher 21:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Block notice

I have blocked you for three days. The intention is to shorten the indefinite block you're under to three days from now, please see my post on WP:ANI. Bishonen | talk 11:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 08:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/m/i/User_talk%7EAmibidhrohi_ec6b.html"