User talk:Publicola

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Publicola, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Publicola 04:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article:Banu Nadir

I think, I will re-edit the paragraph which I wrote under "Other reason for killing" and will put it on front page as a separate heading after a few days till I make that section better. I am also thinking of writing a separate article on Reasons for persecutions by Muhammad and early Muslims, in which we can put arguments from both sides, which then can be put as a reference in all those articles, where persecution of Kafir by early Islam will be discussed. I would like to have your opinion. Secondly, I really appreciate your struggle to stop reverting that article SS.

[edit] Blocked

 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.

--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

unblock|The fourth edit claimed as my 3RR violation was only an insertion of the totallydisputed tag, was done as an alternative to the previous content reversions. Reverting "means undoing the actions of another editor" (WP:3RR), and merely adding the dispute tag did not undo any editor's actions. Publicola 12:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

block is justified, no unblock. pschemp | talk 13:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

unblock|I don't understand. Why is this block justified? WP:3RR clearly states that reverting "means undoing the actions of another editor." How can inserting a dispute tag template -- instead of reverting -- be construed as "undoing" anything? Forgive me for replacing the unblock request, but I really think I am innocent here, and I deserve more than "block is justified" if I am not. Policy is policy; if WP:3RR doesn't mean what it says, then it should be changed. Publicola 19:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

you violated the policy. please do not abuse the unblock tag. pschemp | talk 02:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

unblock|The policy clearly states that reverting means "undoing the actions of another editor." How can asking how I allegedly violated this policy constitute an abuse of the unblock tag? Pecher took no action to remove the dispute tag when he merely reverted to an earlier version without the tag. I believe quite strongly that I have been unfairly blocked, and when I am unblocked I will be requesting informal mediation with administrators PinchasC and pschemp, as well as Pecher, to resolve this dispute. Furthermore, I will be asking the ArbCom to rule on the question of whether someone should ever be blocked when they choose to insert a dispute tag when reverting would violate 3RR. This is manifestly unfair, and the administrator's inability to explain their actions lead me to believe that they know it is unfair. Consider this additional unblock request to be a form of protest against this unfairness. Publicola 07:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Admins don't just overturn blocks without discussing it with the blocking admin first, so even if I agreed with you, all I could do would to be to leave a note on the blocking admin's talk page disagreeing with the block. You may request mediation, but as removing your block without discussion would be violating policy on my part, I have done nothing wrong and will not participate. The issue is with the blocking admin. pschemp | talk 11:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banu Nadir

I think we need attention of an external observer or editor, that can lock this article at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Nadir&oldid=59433750 . Can you also look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grenavitar#Banu_Nadir , it doesn't seem that good ethics are being followed on Wikipedia. I became active on Wikipedia only a few days ago, but after seeing the bureaucratic and somewhat hypocratic infrastructure, I think, I am retiring. As I have been told that Wikipedia has not been accepted by Academics as a reliable source for journal publications, so I think I should focus on my original work of PhD in Robotics rather than wasting my time here. Same topic on Britannica is with much better writing, and you can appreciate the differce between open forum and peer reviewed articles. Anyways, Thanks a lot for supporting. SaadSaleem 03:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

If it makes you feel any better, I was looking over the 3RR reports and the diffs and feel your block was unjustified (unless there is other evidence hiding). Unfortunately, I'm not an admin, so I can't do terribly much, but if anyone sees my message, take a look at the diffs and Pecher's exorbanant amount of 3RR reports. Good luck. Chuck(contrib) 07:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It's nice to know I'm not the only one who feels this way. Publicola 08:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I also wanted to take a moment to express the same sentiments...'nuf said. But I feel your pain. I wonder if these are examples of the growing pains that "unacceptable" (leftists, non-conformists in general, call them whatever) had to go through before they became mainstream, or at least recognized as somewhat of an authority figure (á la Robert Fisk, or my good pal Noam Chomsky). Anyway...keep it up! --How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 12:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

What do you propose to mediate? Pecher Talk 17:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation is almost always about content disputes. In your case, another admin confirmed that the block was valid; in addition, your block has expired, so it's a moot point now. The wuestions you're asking have already been raised on talk of the 3RR policy page and the unanimous conclusion is that any revert, including re-addition of tags counts towards 3RR. Pecher Talk 18:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your 3rr violation

My understanding of WP:3rr is that a revert counts even if the revert is regarding the addition or removal of a tag. If you would like to see this changed you can go to the talk page of WP:3rr. If you feel that I have abused my position as an administrator you are free to file a complaint against me. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Publicola, I'm looking at your contributions and see that one of the first things you did after coming off this block was to revert again to the same version on the same article. Both this and your previous actions constitute edit warring and as such are blockable for that reason. Please do not do that again without discussion. pschemp | talk 18:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
After noticing that your insertions contain blatant copyviolations and the constant edit warring on the article in question, I have protected it. Work out your content issues on its talk page. pschemp | talk 18:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Pepsidrinka?

People are wondering if you are Pepsidrinka. Is this true?Timothy Usher 23:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not, and I don't know who that is.... I can see why people would think that -- my handle is taken from Publius Valerius Publicola because User:Publius, a famous pseudonum, was taken. This would be a great pseudonym for Pepsidrinka, though. I'm not an admin. My only purpose is to try act as if a proposal I'm working on, called "MPOV" (M=multiple), is already policy, and see what happens. At the same time I'm revising it so it's going pretty shaky. I'm a nonnotable agnostic who was raised Christian, living in North America, and I have never edited any articles having to do with anything about Muslims or Jews before ever, I'm sure. I did take an Islamic history class in college, though, because it was kind of interesting after the first World Trade Center attack (I was near NYC at the time) to fulfill a remaining humanities requirement. I picked the topic when I saw Banu Nadir on the front page under DYK because it seemed like such an obvious scrub-job and so it would be a great place to try out my MPOV proposal. I must say I don't really care for the way Muslim viewpoints are treated around here, but I'm not kidding myself about why. Publicola 23:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your mediation case: Banu Nadir

Hiya! I'm a mediator with the Mediation Cabal and was reviewing the case above on request of several concerned users on IRC earlier. I've released User:Pschemp from mediation and have asked her to wait until Geo (the mediator) has finished before unprotecting the article in question. During this time, please continue to work on amicably resolving the dispute in question and using the subpage you created to work out issues between editors.

Thank you, ~Kylu (u|t) 04:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: banu nadir

you may also wish to consult ar-raheeq al-makhtoom (the sealed nectar) which is a celebrated contemporary publication on seerah. it references to the seerah of ibn hisham in most cases, so there is no dispute on credibility in much of what it says. you may also be interested in the fact that the incident with re: the muslim woman and the shopkeeper is found in the seerah of ibn hisham as referenced by the sealed nectar (if that doesnt work go to the index and scroll down to "Invasion of Banu Qainuqa`" and also sections after that), which is also something i have verified in the online arabic version of ibn hisham's seerah. thanks. ITAQALLAH 00:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

regarding saif-ur-rahman mubarakpuri, then what i know of him is that he is indeed currently a researcher at the islamic univerisity of madinah and his seerah is officially endorsed by the university (see book cover, so i guess that would make him the university's "official biographer of muhammad"). his book won first place in the competition of best book on seerah at the muslim world league conference held at madinah. he is also known for heading a group of scholars in rendering the tafseer ibn katheer into english as well as its abridgement. all of his publications to date, including the sealed nectar, have been published by dar-as-salaam (which contains book cover and some extra info) which is a global leader in the publication of islamic material and the official islamic press of saudi arabia. as for any extra confirmation of his status then i will try to find a hard copy of this book tomorrow and see if there is any more information on him (i believe there is also a certificate of endorsement in the book, i will try to verify that) ITAQALLAH 02:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sad

It is not only this article, which is suffering, there are numerous articles on Islam, which are suffering.[1] . These people are tough and I am seeing that this conversation will continue for a while. SaadSaleem 09:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate your concern. I don't really think that jewelery shop incident had any affect on the relations between Muslims and Jews, because it was Muslim's fault who killed that man in the shop in the first place. There are many sayings of Prophet Muhammad which prohibit doing any thing with other person, irrespective of their religion. Qur'an is full of statements regarding the fact that how much a life is sacred without distinguishing them as Muslim or Non-Muslim. Like there is one saying from Prophet Muhammad, I will be his (the oppressed) advocate on the Day of Judgment and I will be the opponent of one who harms a non Muslim and I will speak against those whom I oppose on the Day of Judgment. I think Itaqallah's reason under Expulsion of the Banu Qaynuqa from Medina on Banu_Nadir/mpov gives the proper reason, as from the Muslims perspective, it was not the Muhammad's decision to exile them, it was the God's order because now they openly challenged the God when they knew with their best knowledge that what was the ultimate truth.
I think Banu Nadir has come to a deadlock. Seriously, like what these people want! you give them arguments, they give you back very diplomatic answers. There is no constructive discussion happening. I think, proposal can open this deadlock, but you reckon if other side will participate as you have already done this thing couple of times on the talk page but there is no cooperation from other side. SaadSaleem 14:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
[2] people doesn't seem to be optimistic AND maybe they have a point! SaadSaleem 07:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

The reason that working versions can't have categories is in accord with Wikipedia:Content forking#Temporary_subpages. Essentially when working versions show up in categories they become a point of view fork, by keeping working versions out of categories there is less chance that such forking will occur. Netscott 10:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Almost forgot, as far as templates are concerned, subst'ing them and removing their cats is perfectly fine. Netscott 10:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banu Nadir/mpov

Did you see Banu Nadir/mpov lately? It has improved a lot. I think after a few more tweaks, it will be ready to be placed where it really belongs. SaadSaleem 05:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, we need to celebrate for protection of article with our version :)))))). SaadSaleem 10:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking your contribution in an Arbcomm case

I have an ongoing Arbcomm case involving myself, Pecher, Timothy Usher, and Merzbow. Part of this dispute revolves around my knowlege on Pecher's and Timothy Usher's involvment of pushing an anti-Islam/anti-Muslim bias in articles they're involved in. I've come across your conflicts with them in Banu Nadir and Banu Qaynuqa. Your input in the evidence page on what you've seen as the misrepresentation of sources such as Stillman's book, would be very helpful. Arbcomm welcomes any information (well cited, diffs and page links, etc) , so anything you could add would be helpful. [:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/His_excellency/Evidence] His Excellency... 03:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your taking the time to respond to the Arbcomm case, but I don't think your evidence is particularly relevant. While I agree with you on your observation that a disproportionate number of sources used in Islam-related articles come from Jewish authors, I think the reason for that is really much more complicated. Of the 88 members of the Wikiproject Judaism, only 6 I recognize as being trouble-makers in Islamic articles, and one of them is a professed Christian. I don't think your claim that this has something to do with POV-driven Jews outnumbering POV-driven Muslims is actually correct, and for the purposes of this case I'm not arguing a problem with a pro-Jewish POV. Indeed, both Pecher's misinterpretation of texts AND Timothy Usher's harassment have been subjects of discussion on the Wikiproject Judaism's talk page. Additionally, questioning the motives and these dynamics aren't ideas useful as evidence to the particular case being discussed. I had really hoped you could give more perspective on the particular users you've been in content disputes with, as I know you've had differences with Pecher on his uses of sources. His Excellency... 16:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend significantly altering the evidence you gave since very little of it is actually evidence. The evidence page is NOT there to make statements or to give recommendations to the arbcom. I guarantee you that if you don't make your evidence into actual evidence, the arbcom will ignore everything you said. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
You can take the high ground if you like, but they will ignore what you post. Every word of it. The arbcom is very formal compared to the rest of the project. If you don't follow their rules, they will ignore you or possibly even remove your section. --Woohookitty(meow) 12:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The ends do not justify the means. --Woohookitty(meow) 13:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator

I will ask them, but if I can not get a answer I will close the case.


Geo. 20:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banu Qaynuqa

Do you really think Banu Qaynuqa is balanced now? It still has "Muhammad felt himself strong enough to finally move against the Jews..." and I think you maybe already noticed "more in order to retain their belongings than out of conviction...." DunnoWhatName2Use 23:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No...definitely not. But I think this will go on for a while, with a likely similar result (protecting Banu Qaynuqa and then having edits continue on Banu Qaynuqa/mpov). Either way, I think this is unfortunately the only way the opposing viewpoints will ever get heard. --How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 12:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] banu nadir mediation

regarding the mediation process on banu nadir (which subsequently has an effect on banu qaynuqa and the like), it seems at this point that some of the editors necessary for this to go through do not want to participate in working together to resolve the dispute. if the mediation case is subsequently closed due to this (which may be a plausible possibility), what is the best course of action afterwards in order to resolve the problem (as i'm still pretty much a newbie to certain aspects of WP like advanced dispute resolution)? is it me or am i justifiably disappointed that the current mediator assigned has not really been doing as much as had ben hoped? ITAQALLAH 21:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

yes.. i think patience is the best thing right now. thank you for your thoughtful advice. very much appreciated. ITAQALLAH 14:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid I must decline participation wherever the individual operating under the name His excellency is welcome.Timothy Usher 02:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

I was thinking that if there is an article about Muhammad as a General, why can't we write more articles on Prophet Muhammad such as Muhammad as a teacher, Muhammad as a father and husband, and Muhammad as social reformer. The main problem with Islam is that we have so much information (especially hadith), which can be right, wrong, or incomplete, that people don't miss even a single chance to defame Islam. So I think, to balance it out, we need to put other stuff also which would show the other side of the picture as well. Would like to have your comments. --SaadSaleem 06:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shock and awe

As explained repeatedly on talk, the claims made are either irrelevant or unsupported by the sources linked. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. As you can see, Chris is completely wrong; they are fully supported by the sources. Starcare 06:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Now I can add the original "Indiscriminate civilian deaths" heading without reverting. Starcare 06:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hah! No, I obviously wouldn't have because he was already up to 5 by the time I noticed, and I've been reporting User:ED MD twice in the past week on only four. Do me a favor and wait for his block if you are thinking of reverting back one more time, and then we can both request page protection based on so many 3RR violations. OK? Starcare 07:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shock and Awe bias

The mediation was a request concerning cites not pov material, as you stated incorrectly. Poor show of faith and action on your part. Yes, the material is Islamic-fascist propaganda (pov) but it is also not cited. Thanks for showing your face.--Scribner 05:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You claim: Huh? You have me confused with Starcare. It's his or her mediation request, not mine. I didn't see Shock and awe until going through Wikipedia:Current surveys this evening. Publicola 05:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Not true. You responded to the Starcare's request and showed your Islamic bias with this statement: (this version is fine and shouldn't need the POV tag)[3]

Once again, thanks for showing your face.--Scribner 06:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Proof of violations on your part:

I agree, and am reverting it again, with the "by another name" change he suggested. Publicola 06:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

By another name your going to revert, really?--Scribner 07:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you mention Judaism on my talk page?

Ah, you mean the survey, not the mediation request. You are, interestingly enough, not the first person to accuse me of having an Islamic bias, so I happen to have this handy: Wikipedia's NPOV policy often means multiple points of view.... NPOV policy demands both points of view be presented without prejudice. --WikiProject Judaism

Get back underneath your rock, antisemitc squat.--Scribner 08:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator: Banu Nadir

I am going to recuse from the case as other responsiblities are interfering. Geo. 21:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shock and awe

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shock and awe, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. KWH 09:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shock and awe.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 12:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Suspected sock puppet of User:Pepsidrinka

You and Starcare have been noticeably absent. Being an admitted sock puppet will present a problem for you if your master account is involved in the same mediation.--Scribner 20:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No; replied on Scribner's talk. Publicola 08:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
What are you doing reverting Starcare's page? That is vandlisim. The tag is there for a reason, sock puppet Publicola, and so was your tag.
What articles have you and Striver worked on together?--Scribner 14:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Why did you remove the sock puppet tag on Starcare's page? what are you hiding?
Also, stop stalking me and making reverts, as you just did here: on this article--Scribner 15:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Publicola, if you're an administrator under your main account, and I think you are, then perhaps you should mention it here. Your administrative actions under this sock puppet account come across as arrogant vandalism, not that of a knowledgeable administrator.--Scribner 17:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here's what it's at about

"The real problem is that POV-pushing Jews outnumber, outrank, and out-collaborate POV-pushing Muslims on Wikipedia."

That's from sockpuppet Publicola

Read all about it here It's more Arabs than Muslims pushing POV with 911 issues. Striver, Pubilcola, Starcare, Pepsidrinka, and more are guilty of wholesale POV.--Scribner 05:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banu Qurayza

Hello, I am having problem with this article, can you please have a look, because someone is changing things again and again. Cheers! TruthSpreaderTalk 02:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shock and awe mediation

Hello, I've decided to mediate the Shock and awe case. Sorry it took so long. Anyways, there's some questions you can answer here. Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shock and awe.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 12:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Hey, where are you?

Hello my friend, long time no see! After Banu Nadir, you didn't seem to be active (although that article still has a POV tag on it). Hope to hear from you soon. Cheers! TruthSpreaderTalk 18:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shock and awe

...is impressive. Keep up the good work. KazakhPol 08:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/u/b/User_talk%7EPublicola_4efe.html"